I wish to raise a question with reference to a very important word which occurs in line 8 of Clause 3 of the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill. I do not know whether it has been held to be the unbroken practice of this House that an Amendment may not be moved at this stage. Beginning at line 5, the Act states—

"The Treasury shall repay moneys so borrowed with interest not exceeding five per cent. per annum out of the growing produce of the Consolidated Fund."

I think that word "produce" has crept in through an inadvertence, and, as I shall show, it is a word which undoubtedly is used in what I may call the standard Act. There are also two other words used in this connection in this Act, one of which will be more proper here. Sir, I may say that the Consolidated Fund has no "produce"; it is the strong box in which the product of the taxes is kept. It does not itself produce anything. Originally the exchequer was actually boxes, but it is now an entry in the books of the Bank of England. No doubt the produce or tax is paid into this account in the Bank of England, and as those taxes go on accruing, so the produce goes to the Bank of England and forms the Consolidated Fund, and it is out of that Consolidated Fund and the accruing accretions of that produce that the Treasury is authorised to pay these sums. Now Section 12 of the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1866 reads—

"And if it shall appear by such amount that the income of the Consolidated Fund in Great Britain or in Ireland for the quarter is not sufficient to defray the charge upon it, the Comptroller and Auditor General, if satisfied of the correctness of the deficiency, shall certify the amount thereof to the Bank of England."

Again, Sir, in the same clause—

"And the principal and interest of all such advances shall be paid out of the growing produce of the Consolidated Fund in the said succeeding quarter."

There the words "growing produce" are for the first time used, and, I think, it has crept in inadvertently and means the accruing produce of the taxes. Now in Clause 13 of the same Act we find—

"The Comptroller and Auditor General shall grant to the Treasury from time to time on their requisitions authorising the same, if satisfied of the correctness thereof, credits on the Exchequer accounts at the Banks of England and Ireland, or on the growing balances thereof, not exceeding the amount of the charge in the aforesaid quarterly account of the income and charge of the Consolidated Fund remaining unpaid."

Order, order! I have allowed the hon. Member to go so far because I desired to appreciate precisely his position. I may explain to him that this Bill is founded upon certain other Acts of Parliament, and is introduced for the purpose of giving the Treasury authority to issue from the Consolidated Fund money which has already been granted for certain purposes by Parliament. The form and language of the Bill are governed by long precedent, and I could not receive or put from the Chair the Amendment the hon. Member has indicated. I hope the hon. Member will take it from me that this is the case. I am bound to adhere to the ruling of my predecessors in this matter. The hon. Member can ask a question, but he must not make a speech with a view to moving his Amendment.

I bow to your ruling, which, indeed, I had anticipated, and I therefore will not move the Amendment that I should otherwise have moved—that is, to substitute the word "balances" for the word "produce." I will content myself with asking my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in his opinion, the word "produce" is the right one. I only wish to conclude the argument I was using by saying that in Clause 12 the "income of the Consolidated Fund" is used, and, also, the "growing produce." In Clause 17 of this Act the words "growing balances thereof" are used, and that, I submit, Sir, would be the proper word to use. However, as you have ruled that it is impossible to move an Amendment in the Committee stage of this Bill, I shall not, of course, move to leave out the word "produce" and substitute the word "balances." I do submit that the word "produce" is an improper word which does not describe anything in connection with the Consolidated Fund, and it is very important that that wrong word should not be used because it has already been used. We know that in our Standing Orders the retention of a wrong phraseology has very often produced very serious inconveniences. I know my right hon. Friend is as strict a guardian of the English language as he is of the Treasury funds, and I am sure he will appreciate the importance of having the absolutely correct word used in this connection. As I am not at liberty to substitute the word "balances" for the word "produce," I content myself by asking the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in his opinion, the word "produce" is a right one—I know it is the professional one—and for what reason it is used in connection with a fund which is merely an exchequer.

My hon. Friend has asked me if the word "produce" more correctly describes what is meant, and with perfect accuracy, he stated that in 1896 there were three terms used, why I am not able to say. The three terms—"balances of the Consolidated Fund," "income," and "produce"—are terms used to mean exactly the same thing, and I am bound to say that two of them—the income and the produce—are not very apt phrases. The words "income of the Consolidated Fund" are somewhat misleading, because these would imply that there were incomes accruing on the Consolidated Fund, which, of course, is not the case. "The balance of the Consolidated Fund" is, I think, a more correct term, because what is really intended to be represented by these three phrases is the "growing produce" of the revenue as it is paid into the Exchequer in the form of the Consolidated Fund. The reason why this phrase is introduced in this Consolidated Fund Bill at all is, in fact, that if we were not authorised to borrow upon the "growing produce," we should be only able to make the usual Treasury demands upon the Comptroller and Auditor at the beginning of the quarter when we present the schedule of our quarterly demands. But, as we might want money before the end of the quarter, therefore we are authorised by this Act to draw upon the growing produce in the manner indicated.

I beg leave to move that the Nonconformist Marriages (Attendance of Registrars) Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, was prepared some years ago by a Joint Committee representing all the leading Nonconformist churches in this country, including the Methodists, Congregationalists, Independents, Baptists, and Presbyterians, who were all represented upon this Committee, and the Bill, substantially, which it is now proposed to read a second time, was the outcome of the work of that Committee. I think I am entitled also to say that, while there may be isolated cases in various parts of the country of ministers of different Nonconformist churches who may object to some of the provisions of this Bill, the Bill, as a whole, commends itself to the judgment of every large and recognised Nonconformist church in England and in Wales. The Registrar General's Report for last year shows that there were 228,000 marriages conducted in this country in the churches and chapels and before the registrars and sub-registrars. Out of those 228,000 marriages, 63 per cent., or 630 out of every 1,000, were conducted in the churches of the Established Church of England. With those marriages this Bill is not concerned. Now, 14 per cent. of those marriages were solemnised, if that term can be used, in the registrar's offices, and these the Bill does not in any way whatever affect. Four per cent. were solemnised in the Roman Catholic churches in England and Wales, and this Bill does apply to those marriages. Twelve per cent. were solemnised in Nonconformist places of worship, and the Bill also applies to those. From 5 to 6 per cent. were solemnised in the places of worship of the Jews and the Society of Friends, but this Bill, for reasons which I will state in a moment, does not apply to these; so that, practically, the present Bill applies to 16 per cent. of the marriages solemnised in this country, and the total number of marriages which were so solemnised last year, amounted roughly to 30,000. I may have to allude to this number shortly, when I describe the effect of this Bill on the pecuniary position of the registrars. Now, Mr. Speaker, the present law in this country affecting Nonconformist marriages rests substantially upon the Acts of 1836 and 1856, and upon one or two Amending Acts to which it is not now necessary to refer. Practically no Nonconformist, with one or two exceptions, can be at present married in this country without the attendance of the civil registrar at his wedding. That obligation, however, does not extend to the Jews and the Society of Friends. Both of these religious communities are exempted from the attendance of the civil registrar compulsorily at their marriages. There are one or two Nonconformist churches or chapels in this country which, by a somewhat singular regulation, are also entitled to marry without the presence of the registrar. One of those churches, for example, is the Aldershot church of the Methodist community, where marriages can be solemnised by the minister without the attendance of a civil registrar. The Bill which is now before the House is an attempt to apply to England and Wales and the Channel Islands the power for Nonconformists to get married by their own religious officers, or such persons who are entitled to marry or conduct marriages in their places of worship, without the compulsory attendance of the civil registrar. The Bill is purely permissive, and anybody who desires to get married, after this Bill passes, in a Nonconformist place of worship with the registrar will be perfectly entitled in do so. There is nothing in this Bill which excludes a registrar from Nonconformist places of worship, should his presence be desired. In Scotland this power has long been the privilege of the Scottish people. Since 1868 every Dissenting minister has been able to conduct a marriage service without the presence of the registrar, and in Ireland since 1863 a power which was previously enjoyed by the established Roman Catholic and Presbyterian Churches has been enjoyed by other Dissenting churches in Ireland. I may, perhaps, be permitted to refer to the evidence which was given before the Select Committee in 1893, when this subject was gone into with great care. I refer to the evidence then given by the registrar of Ireland, as to the effect of this Bill in that country. Mr. Mathieson, Secretary to the General Register Office, and assistant registrar for Ireland, was asked whether any mischief, so far as he knew, resulted from the freedom given to the Nonconformists of Ireland since 1863, and his answer was, "I am not aware of any." He was asked later on by the hon. Member for Wigan, who was a member of the Select Committee, whether it had been neces sary, in the case of any Dissenting ministers of religion in Ireland, owing to their refusal to register under the Act, to enforce the penalties under the Act, which are much heavier than are proposed under this Bill, and the registrar said, "I am not aware that we had any case of the kind." Later on the Irish registrar was asked whether there had been any case in Ireland of bogus or fraudulent marriage in the churches of Dissenting centres, and he stated that he was not aware of any. He was asked later, Question 1,323, whether there was sufficient security in these churches for the provision of registration—for the registration being properly and legally made—and he said, "We have not found any difficulty on that point." The evidence which was presented to the Committee by the Irish registrar as to the satisfactory operation of the Act was corroborated in every detail by the evidence which was given by Mr. Temple, of Edinburgh, who was deputed by the Scotch Registrar General to attend before the Committee. Mr. Temple's evidence was again corroborated in every way by the Registrar General of Scotland, who himself came before the Committee; so I submit that this Bill, which is based upon the present operation of the law in Scotland and Ireland, is not chargeable with the extraordinary criticisms which have been directed against it by the registrars of this country, who, I rather think, are more influenced by the fear of losing their fees than by their desire for careful registration in the churches of the Nonconformists. We are sometimes told that there are a number of small religious communities in this country, the names of which have generally been selected from an edition of Whitaker, which I am glad to say has now been expurgated—diminutive religious communities—which make no proper provision for the conduct of their religious services and their marriage services. It is quite true that there may be some such small sects, and if it is necessary—and this Bill goes to Committee—to make provision, as has already been made in the Irish Act., for the protection of the people against the loss of registers, or the due solemnisation of marriages, the promoters of this Bill will not object to any reasonable provision being made. I venture to point out that the report of the Registrar General for the last year shows that in England and Wales there are 11,600 places of worship which are licensed for the solemnisation of marriage, which have been suffering under the somewhat unhappy prohibition of the law of 1836, and the great percentage of those churches belong to what I may call the recognised Dissenting religious bodies. In this Report, of the 11,600 churches returned only 643 belong to these small sects. Out of the 11,600 places of worship registered in England and Wales 11,000 belong to what I may call the seven largest recognised religious bodies in this country: Presbyterian, 382; Congregational, 2,477; Baptist, 2,093; Roman Catholic, 1,049; Unitarian, 155; Bible Christians, 139; Wesleyan and other Methodists, 4,671. Now, the places of worship connected with these religious communities are settled on most carefully prepared trusts, and are, for the most part, under the control of a central authority; and it is impossible that in the Wesleyan Church a fraudulent, irregular, or bogus marriage could be conducted and solemnised under this Bill. Now, I have referred to the present existing law in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and I will now describe the grievance felt by the Nonconformists in this country. It is a grievance which bears very hardly upon Dissenters in rural districts, and especially upon the poor, who have, in many cases, to make long journeys to the registrar's office, and then have to go to the superintendent registrar's office, and then back again to the registrar, and afterwards to the minister of religion. All these may be 15 or 16 miles away from the village where these good people live. It is one of the most perplexing things for a village Dissenter to know how to get effectually, successfully, and legally married with the formularies of his Church, and the cost is about twice as much as that for which a person can get married in the Established Church, among the Jewish Community, or the Society of Friends. I can give the House, perhaps, a better idea of these practical grievances if I refer to one or two instances brought before the Select Committee which dealt with this subject in 1893. I have a list of no fewer than 93 cases, all arising in Wesleyan chapels, which were brought before that Committee. I will refer to two or three of them. In the first place, the couple lived six miles from the chapel, and the registrar lived five miles away. The registrar overlooked the appointment, and the parties had to drive home and come again next day, and yet this registrar says the law works well. In the next case there was a large wedding party and congregation, who, owing to the non-appearance of the registrar, had to be sent away, and the ceremony took place next day. This was in the town of Smethwick. In the next case there was a delay of an hour, owing to the registrar having forgotten all about the wedding. In the fourth case the registrar did not appear. He was telegraphed for, but there was no reply, and when the parties drove over to his house they found the family had gone out for the day, and the marriage was postponed until the next day, when the deputy registrar came. In the fifth case the ceremony had to be postponed because the registrar had not sent the certificate. In the sixth case the wedding was fixed for two o'clock, and they waited until 2.50, when the registrar arrived. The minister instantly commenced the service, when the registrar interposed and said the wedding could not proceed, as the name of the wrong chapel had been inserted in the certificate, and the wedding had to be postponed to the next day, and was solemnised at another chapel. In the next case the friends came many miles, and there was a large congregation. The registrar forgot, and did not come, and the wedding was postponed until next day. In the next case the minister was a few minutes late, and the registrar, saying he had to catch a train, proceeded to marry the parties in the vestry. When the minister arrived he performed the religious service, and, upon going to the station, found the registrar walking on the platform, waiting for the train. In the next case the registrar went for a holiday, and forgot to tell his deputy, and after three hours' delay the deputy registrar was found and brought to the church. In the next case the registrar made a mistake and did not come, and the parties waited for hours. In that case the minister had been his own registrar for 18 years in India, and also for three years at Aldershot, when his return was sent to the district registrar direct. I might go on, but that I am afraid I should only weary the House by quoting any more. Those are cases which have been selected from the Wesleyan Methodist Church, but others are exposed to the same difficulty. The House will see that the grievance is not a sentimental one, as it was said to be, and that this Bill is not introduced for the purpose of increasing the dignity of the Nonconformist preachers, but that it is a serious inconvenience felt by vast numbers of people of this country. It is not surprising that numerous attempts have been made to deal with this obnoxious condition. There was a Bill introduced by Mr. Blennerhasset in 1881. The next attempt was by the present Attorney General in 1886. Then, in 1887, there was another Bill introduced by the present Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and the hon. Member for Sheffield. I will refer in a moment to some of the difficulties which arose in connection with that thoroughly honest attempt to cope with this grievance by the Government in 1887. In 1888, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton brought in a Bill, which was supported by Mr. Richards and Mr. Illingworth. We are sometimes told that the proper way of meeting this difficulty is to put a registrar in every place of worship in this country, not only of the Nonconformists, but the Established Church; but it would be a hopeless task to try and induce the clergy of the Established Church to consent, to that, or to surrender any small emolument they receive from the marriages they solemnise. It would be difficult to persuade the members of the Established Church of this country to subject the villagers of this country who are connected with their church to all the difficulties which arise in connection with the attendance of the registrar at these marriages. But if it were necessary to say anything in reply to the critics who desire to introduce the Civil Registrar into all places of worship, it would not be necessary to do more than to refer to the arguments of Mr. Richards and Mr. Illingworth, who supported the Bill which was introduced in 1888. I think there are two fatal objections to the Bill which was introduced by the Government in 1887—two objections which would be so fatal to any scheme that it would be impossible that any such Bill could be adopted by the Nonconformists in this country. I think my hon. Friends opposite will see at once what they are. The first was the regulation which required the minister to be registered on payment of a fee of 10s. in respect of every place of worship in which he solemnised marriage. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: We offered to waive that.] Yes, you offered to waive that in a measure by saying that the minister might be registered for a dozen places of worship. But we must remember that the Methodists have 4,000 places of worship licensed for marriage, and the ministers are all itinerant, moving from one part of the country to another. Every three years they have to leave and go, say, from Birmingham to Bristol, and move about from place to place, and any scheme which would necessitate ministers, when shifting from one part of the country to another, to pay such fees as this would be an extremely costly arrangement. The other objection was that the Bill of 1887 only permitted the exclusion of the registrar from places of worship which were under the control of the central body. That would exclude the Congregationalists and those other communities which are separately organised and independent churches not subject to, or governed by, a central church authority. Now, I might just allude to the present Bill. It is, in the first place, optional, and it is based, as I said before, not merely upon the Scotch and Irish systems, which have worked so well, but upon the Report of the Select Committee to which the question was referred in 1893. That was not a packed Committee in any sense, and upon it were several prominent members of the Established Church, some of whom are present to-day, and who will, no doubt, take part in this discussion. There were four members of the Established Church upon the Committee and five representatives of Dissenting communities, but we unanimously adopted our Report; there was no dissension of any kind, and, with one exception, this Bill is based upon the Report of that Committee; and I may say, if it should be necessary to strengthen this Bill by making any further provision to secure the due registration of marriage and the preservation of registers, those provisions will be accepted by the promoters of this Bill. We provide by this Bill that parties desiring to marry, instead of having to go to the registrar, and from him to the superintendent registrar, and then back again to the registrar, will only have to make one journey. They will go to the superintendent registrar, and will obtain from him a duly filled-up form, which will be taken by the parties intending to marry to the place of worship where the marriage is to be performed. It will be the duty of the minister to see that this form is signed by himself and two credible witnesses, and that one form is retained at the church, while the other is posted to the superintendent registrar, and sent by him in due course to the Registrar General. I may just perhaps allude in a sentence to the fees of the registrar. Last year 30,000 marriages were conducted by Nonconformist ministers, and 30,000 fees of 5s. each were paid to the registrar. The suggestion in the Bill is to reduce that fee by 2s. 6d.—to take 2s. 6d. away from the registrar and give it to the superintendent registrar; that means that the small sum of £3,750 is taken from the registrar and given to the superintendent. It is a very small amount when distributed among all the registrars, and I think we are entitled to ask why it is we have all this hubbub and excitement arising among the registrars of this country, because they think they are going to be deprived of this small emolument. In my judgment there is no more absurd objection to this Bill than that which comes from those people who say that Nonconformist ministers, by taking advantage of this Bill, would constitute themselves State officials. Was that view taken with regard to the Burial Acts? Does the Nonconformist minister, who, in burying a member of his congregation, takes advantage of the Burials Act—he subjects himself to heavy penalties if he infringes the Act—constitute himself a State official? It is absurd to say so. This Measure receives a very large amount of support from many people in this country who do not, to their misfortune, belong to the Liberal Party. I have numerous letters and communications from prominent Conservatives, who are in favour of this Bill; and, if I may be permitted, I should like to read one letter, which I have received, and which I may use, as it is not marked private, and which is signed by the most prominent and accomplished Conservative in the country to-day. It was written to a Presbyterian clergyman, who was complaining that he could not conduct marriages in Lincolnshire in the same way in which he had been in the habit of doing in Scotland—I will give the name when I have read the letter. This good man could not imagine that such an obsolete and absurd law existed in this country. He was, I think, about to marry a couple, when some technicality arose which could not have arisen in Scotland, and he then discovered that he was subject to a different law. He wrote to the fountain of authority in those days to know what was the meaning of this singular rule, and in reply to his communication he received this letter—

In seconding this Bill I must say that I feel it refreshing to take part in this Debate under the ægis of the Prime Minister. I second this Motion because the Bill constitutes the best proposal for the reform of the Nonconformist grievance which has ever been submitted to the House. I do not touch on either of the other Hills which have preceded this—sufficient reference to which has been made by my hon. Friend—but leave them without further discussion. But, Sir, the intention of this Bill, as my hon. Friend has explained, is to remove from the Nonconformists the inconveniences and the annoyances which arise from the delays, irregularities, and some-times the unseemly conduct of registrars. I am bound to say—and I think it is but right that I should say—that registrars have generally conducted themselves in our Nonconformist places of worship with marked propriety. There have, however, been exceptions to the rule, when, for instance, a registrar sat on a communion table with his hat on and persistently refused to remove from that position. I can only observe, Sir, that if I had been interested in that particular ceremony he would have had to be a very strong man to have maintained that position. These inconveniences, instances of which my hon. Friend has just quoted, may amuse hon. Members opposite, but I fancy that if hon. Members themselves were the subjects of such experiences they would not be so ready to smile. Another point that we have in view in this Bill is the abolition of the distinction that now exists between the Church of England and the chapels of Nonconformists. As the law now stands, a clergyman has full power to tie the nuptial knot effectively in his place of worship, whereas the Nonconformist minister has no such power, and the real effective part of the ceremony lies in the hands, and is dependent upon the personal presence of the registrar at the ceremony. Now, Sir, we have no objections to registration. We are as anxious as any Member of the House can be, whatever their views, that the registration of the marriages taking place in Nonconformist chapels shall be as effective and as thorough as can possibly be desired; but at the same time we feel that the necessity for the presence of the registrar is a grievance of which we have a right to complain, and in respect of which, by this Measure, we are seeking redress. Our desire is that the Nonconformist minister shall be fully competent to officiate in his own chapel and conduct the marriage ceremony solemnly and effectively in his own person. A great many Nonconformists—and I must confess myself one of them—feel that this solemn ceremony, so fraught with serious consequences to the whole of one's life, should be conducted, as far as possible, under the very highest sanction, and as long as Nonconformists in Ireland and Scotland and Nonconformists in England of the persuasion of the Society of Friends, or members of the Church of England, can have this privilege, we do not see why it should be refused to those who are attached to other Nonconformist bodies. Now, Sir, I will not traverse all the arguments my hon. Friend has so ably laid before the House, but I will advert, in a very few words, to the position which Nonconformist ministers take upon this question. They feel that the distinction made between themselves and the clergy of the Church of England is a reflection upon themselves, and one which they have seriously determined to repudiate, and which this Legislature, I think, ought to be willing to recognise. The difference that is made between the clergyman and the minister gives countenance to the statement which is continually made by over-zealous curates when they are making visitations—namely, that those who want marrying, and marrying effectively, must come to the Church of England, as the curate or the vicar—as the case may be—is the only person who can effectually perform the ceremony. Now, Sir, there is no doubt, as my hon. Friend has already said, that the great body of Nonconformist ministers are in favour of this Bill. I am willing to admit that there are a few who object to the Bill on the ground that it will make them civil servants, but the number entertaining that opinion is comparatively few, and there is a large number of Nonconformist ministers, I believe, who think that the better method of procedure would be to retain the civil registrar in our chapels, and to set him on the same footing in the Church of England. I appeal to hon. Members opposite, who are adherents and supporters of that Church, whether there is any probability that such a law would ever be passed, or passed within a reasonable time; and if that be the case, I think we can claim that until public opinion in the Church of England itself has come round to that point of view—in the intermediate time—this grievance shall be removed from the Nonconformists. And, Sir, such being the view of the ministers in Nonconformist churches, what is the opinion of the laity? Well, they are anxious, I believe—or the great bulk of them are anxious—for the withdrawal of the registrar from these ceremonies, because they feel it is undesirable to give too great a prominence to the civil contract which is made on these occasions. Then, Sir, the aspersion under which the minister lies in the present state of the law is felt also by the laity, because I would have the House remember that the relationship between the ministers of Nonconformist churches and their adherents is a peculiar one. They are men of their own selection, and of their own choice. They support those ministers by their free-will offerings and contributions. They look up to those ministers with respect and with veneration, and I am happy to say that in a great many cases the young people—I do not refer to the older ones who are undertaking the matrimonial contract for the second or third time—but the young people who are going to be married are, in the main, adherents of those churches in which they are married; they received their earliest moral and religious training from the men who are to perform that ceremony, and they feel it an indignity to those ministers whom they so highly respect that they are unable to officiate fully and completely in the ceremony without the intervention of the registrar. And, Sir, if there are, as there may be, some Members of the Nonconformist bodies who desire that the registrar should be present, I need only point out that the Bill is purely optional, and that the existing system can be adopted if they so prefer. Well, I do not know what opposition may be developed in this House, but it does seem to me that the registrars are conspicuous amongst the critics outside this House. In the Times this morning I notice that there is a letter signed by Mr. Charles Townley, who is the president of the Associated Registrars of England and Wales, and he says—

"The Bill, which is down for Second Reading on Wednesday, ostensibly proposes to meet a Nonconformist grievance carefully cultivated by the Liberation Society."

I do not know what my Friend in front of me (Mr. Carvell Williams) may have to say on this subject, but I have the honour to be a member of the Liberation Society, and a member of its executive, and I am not aware of any special cultivation on the part of that society of this "Nonconformist grievance." No, Mr. Speaker, these grievances require no cultivation. They cultivate themselves. They are continually cropping up, and those who take an active part in the management of Nonconformist places of worship are continually met by grievances which arise out of the existing state of the law. Mr. Townley goes on to say that the Bill does not remove the inequality in respect of the Church of England and Nonconformist ministers. Well, Sir, I contend that this Bill does remove the inequality, because it puts the Nonconformist in the same capacity to effectually marry a couple as the Church clergyman. There is not exactly the same procedure with regard to registration, but the equality secured by the Bill is the equality which we think to be desired. Now, Sir, hon. Members have been put in possession of a document within the last few days which gives some reasons why this Bill should not be passed. That document has no signature attached to it; but it is very evident from whom the document comes, and I think this same Mr. Townley, who has favoured us with a letter in the Times this monring, is the author of that document, judging from the phraseology and from the arguments that are used in the letter and in the document to which I have just referred. Well, Sir, my hon. Friend has already shown how very small would be the loss which registrars would sustain if the office should be demolished, a loss which I think need not weigh heavily upon the minds of Members in the consideration of this Bill. The registrars complain, first of all, that in the Bill now before the House there is unhappily the uncertainty of registration. As my hon. Friend has already said, if the provisions with regard to registrars in the Bill are not satisfactory, let the House in Committee improve those provisions and make them more stringent if they need it. But so far as we, as Nonconformists, are concerned, we are perfectly satisfied with the provisions of the Bill, and if they are good enough for us, who are immediately concerned, I do not think Members in this House need distress their minds by anxiety on this subject. These regulations are very similar to those now existing in Ireland and in Scotland, and I think we need not argue further on the subject. But the registrars seem to think that there is a possibility that no registration at all will take place. What are the facts of the case? The facts are that the 30,000 marriages taking place annually in Nonconformist places of worship are the marriages of persons who are the adherents of that very place of worship in which the marriage takes place. The officiating minister is a man who has a personal and direct interest in the well-being of the persons who are so married, and is it to be supposed that the minister will forget the very simple duty of posting the fully made up return to the superintendent registrar after he has performed the ceremony? And, Sir, I need not say that every security is taken that the ministers will do their duty in this respect by the imposition of a penalty under Clause 2, and in addition thereto another security is arranged in imposing upon the registrar, after a lapse of three months, without any return being made, the duty of making inquiries whether the wedding was celebrated or not. Then, Sir, another argument used is that it would be a retrograde step to remove a grievance from a section of the community by the adoption of another which will be dangerous to all. Well, Sir, I do not see where the "danger to all" comes in. If those who are concerned in a wedding—the specific wedding now under discussion—are satisfied, and if they themselves and their ministers, and the Nonconformist body generally, approve the regulations in this Bill—or other regulations which may be put in their place—I think there is no room for any complaint. Then, Sir, we have the suggestion that fraudulent and clandestine marriages will be celebrated and increased in number by the adoption of this Measure. Sir, is it reasonable to suppose that Gretna Green marriages and irregular marriages of that kind are to recur in the history of this country by the passage of this Bill? Nonconformist places of worship are not open to everybody, and those who have the management of those places of worship have certainly some sense of propriety and decorum, and they will take good care—in fact, they do take good care—as has been proved by the evidence to which my hon. Friend has referred, that no such irregularities take place there. I am quite sure it is quite a bogus idea, and a bogus difficulty, raised by the registrars, and that there is no foundation for the suggestion. Then, Sir, another objection is raised on the ground that Nonconformists are not agreed as to the details of this Bill and the provisions that are made in it. Are we, then, because there is a variety of opinion amongst Nonconformists as to the details of this Bill, to postpone legislation until everybody is agreed? Why, Sir, there would be very little legislation in this House if we had to wait until everybody concurred in the details of the Measures submitted. Another objection is raised on the ground that 20 per cent. of the registrations in the Church of England at the present moment are faulty. I do not know where the registrars have got their figures from, but I hold in my hands the returns which were prepared under that head of the marriages which took place in 1891 hi the Church of England, and I find that there are 1,310 technical irregularities in the registration by the clergymen, and that number arose out of a total marriage list of 158,139. I think there is an over-anxiety on the part of these registrars to make a bad case against the Church of England for their irregularities, in order to ground the assumption that similar irregularities will occur amongst the Dissenting ministers. I believe that the statement in this paper is an exaggeration, and I believe that Nonconformist ministers will prove themselves in practice equal to the duties which will be imposed upon them by this Bill. And then, Sir, another argument raised by the registrar is that this is merely a private Members' Bill, that it is proceeding to deal with this question piecemeal, and that we ought to wait until the Government will take up the question, and that, instead of taking the registrar out of the Nonconformist places of worship we should have one put into the Church of England. Well, Sir, I have already adverted to that point. We believe that the time is long distant when the Church of England will consent to any such regulations, and in the meantime the grievances of which we complain are substantial, and ought to be removed. On these grounds, Sir, and in the firm belief that this House will recognise that this is a grievance which calls for immediate redress, I have very great pleasure in seconding the Motion.

It certainly is not in the interest of the registrars, nor is it in the interest of the Church of England, that I question the propriety of passing this Bill, unless, indeed, it is so altered in Committee that its own fathers will not know it. I question the propriety of passing this Bill in the interests of all those who, after the passing of it, will be married otherwise than in accordance with the present law. I think when a Bill is brought in to alter the Marriage Laws we ought to consider the purpose for which those Marriage Laws have been enacted. Certainly marriage is not only generally—I wish it were always—a religious contract, but it is the most important civil contract into which parties can enter, and it is very essential that the State should take care of certain things with regard to that contract. It should take care that only those enter into it whom the State allows to do so. Other contracts may be entered into by all sorts of people with very much less care and caution than the marriage contract, because such contracts generally affect only the parties to them, but the marriage contract affects many besides the parties, and especially unborn chil dren. It, therefore, is important that care should be taken that only those enter into the contract of marriage whom the State considers proper to do so. It also seems to me that sufficient safeguards should be taken previously to secure that adequate publicity should be given of the intention of the parties to enter into this contract. It is further necessary that the State should be satisfied that the marriage ceremony is duly performed by officials who will take care that those previous requirements have been attended to; and it is necessary that there should be a sufficiently binding ceremony, and that proper records should be kept, so that proof of the marriage may be easy of access. When, therefore, I see a Bill that is going to alter the Marriage Laws I look to see whether those requirements, which I think every Member of this House will readily admit to be essential to the marriage contract, are sufficiently safeguarded; and it is because I think they are not sufficiently safeguarded by this Bill, but very much the reverse, that I gave notice of my intention to oppose it. In olden times we know it was the clergyman alone who could perform the marriage ceremony, and we all know the circumstances which rendered it necessary that the State should take this important matter into its own hands. Well, the State did so, and thus removed the grievances of those who did not like to be married by a clergyman. But, at the same time, it made stringent laws, and while it allowed marriages to be performed in the presence of registrars it required, amongst other things, a duplicate register to be kept in the office of the chief registrar of the district. But what does this Bill propose? It proposes to leave the power in the hands of the clergy; it proposes to leave the power in the hands of the registrar; and then it proposes to add certain other people, but whom? The hon. Members who moved and seconded the Second Reading of this Bill spoke as if the only other persons authorised to act were the recognised ministers of recognised religious persuasions. If that were the case, and this Bill removed the suggested disability, the objection that I have now taken to the Bill would not arise; but it does not do that. Nonconformist ministers at present have no power of celebrating marriages, and the promoters of the Bill assert that it will give them the power. But I can find no such enactment in the Bill, or any mention of Nonconformist ministers, unless, indeed, to use a phrase which has become classical, it is "reverentially embalmed in the preamble." The preamble says—

"Whereas it is lawful for clergymen of the Church of England to solemnise marriage without the presence of a registrar of marriages; and whereas it is desirable that the power of solemnising marriage without the presence of a registrar should be extended to other religious bodies."

The Church and chapels do not perform marriages; can it be that by religious bodies Nonconformist ministers are meant? The Bill, however, recognises that hitherto the law has been that marriages must take place either in churches of the Church of England, or in chapels, or in the office of the registrar, and that there must be either a clergyman or a registrar to perform the ceremony or to see that the requirements of the law have been complied with. The only phrase I see in this Bill is, "the person officiating," and if it passes as it is introduced to this House it will empower not recognised Nonconformist ministers only, but any man, woman, or child in the Kingdom to perform the marriage ceremony—to look at the certificate of the registrar to see that it is all in order, to see whether or not the declarations are made which this Act requires, and that there is nothing to cause the marriage to be voided. Sir, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that being done by a boy of 14, or by a woman of any age. Now, I am quite sure that that could not be the intention of the authors; their intention was to limit the power to Nonconformist ministers. Now, if Nonconformist ministers feel it is a slur upon their position that they are unable to do that which the Church of England clergymen can do, are they prepared to accept the conditions upon which clergymen hold their position? No man can be ordained except in accordance with laws made by Parliament. It is at any time easy to ascertain whether a man is a clergyman or not, and if he acts improperly he can be brought to book by the bishop. In placing this grave duty in a clergyman's hands we have thus a man who is more or less a State official. Will Nonconformist ministers, who now glory in their freedom, like to be put in the same position? If not, they should see that there is no slur upon them. If there were, I would be the first to try to remove it. But this view of the matter impresses me strongly. It is not enough to have the legal requirements attended to, and the ceremony performed, and the evidence of the marriage preserved to the satisfaction of the parties only, as the Member for Dewsbury contended. Have we not all known, or heard, of cases in which a wicked man has seduced a girl by pretending to go through a form of marriage with her, a common plan being to have it performed by a man who pretended to be a clergyman? It is a breach of the law which subjects the offender to severe punishment to pretend to be a clergyman. It is not a crime for a layman to pretend to be, or act, as a Nonconformist minister; and as any man can hire a room, register it as a chapel for a fee of 5s., and then pretend to be a minister, this Bill would make it far too easy for designing villains in this way to get innocent girls into their power. The difficulties in the way of obtaining the attendance of registrars have been much exaggerated. We have not heard what the registrars had to say in the cases quoted by the horn. Member for Louth. Probably the fault often lay with the parties. At any rate, there is no difficulty all over the Continent of Europe. I really wish that the Government would take the matter in hand, and propose some simple form of marriage contract, and that this should be made imperative in every case. All parties marrying should be required to agree to this civil contract in the presence of a State official, after due public notification, following this up by any religious ceremony they may prefer, and asking the sanction and blessing of the Almighty upon the most important act of their lives. This is the universal law on the Continent. As this Bill will be read a second time, I hope that material alterations will be made in it by the Committee of the whole House, so as to guard against the dangers I have pointed out, and in order to secure discussion I move pro formâ that it be read a second time six months hence.

This is a question in which I have taken a deep interest for many years. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of it or not, but only lately many clergymen in the Church of England were unable to marry members of their own flock in their own church. A relation of mine, who is a clergyman in the borough which I have the honour to represent, was not able to marry members of his flock on this account, and although the relations between my relative and the rector who was authorised to perform the marriages were of a friendly character, nevertheless there is a sense of inferiority shown by the law which is galling to the mind of the clergy. I therefore approach this subject with great feelings of sympathy towards the promoters of the Bill, and I lay down this general proposition that it is not in the interests of the Church of England, except some great question of principle is involved, to have any privilege which is not enjoyed by our Nonconformist friends. I am perfectly sure myself—and I have had to deal with this subject for many years—that the true course of the Church of England, and a course which has proved successful by the experience of the past, is that of friendship and conciliation towards the Nonconformist body. I therefore think that a Bill in this sense should be passed, and I do hope that we shall not have the discussion on the Second Reading disturbed by the importation of details which may be of very great importance, but which are, nevertheless, subjects rather for the Committee than for the present stage of the Bill. Having gone so far in my argument, I may refer for one or two moments to my lessons of experience. I served on the Committee, as my hon. Friend has stated, and I had the honour of being chairman upon one occasion. Now, the evidence given to us from Ireland was remarkable. It was given by Mr. Matheson, the Assistant Registrar General. It describes the? condition of affairs in Ireland, which are, to use a familiar phrase, "more liberal" than the arrangements which prevail in this country at the present time. This question was put to him by the Chairman of the Committee—

"Now, inasmuch as in Ireland, both for the Irish Church as established and for the Roman Catholic Church, and for what may be called the Dissenters, there is no presence of the registrar required, I ask you have any mischiefs, so far as you know, resulted from that freedom?"

The witness replied, emphatically, "I am not aware of any." A similar question was put to Mr. Agnew, the Registrar General for Scotland, and the question ran in these words, and was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury—

"In your capacity as Registrar General for Scotland you have already said that you testify to the general satisfaction which the present system of legislation gives, but do you know, in your official capacity, of any irregularities that have arisen?"

The answer was "No." There we have the testimony of the very highest official in Scotland, and we have from Ireland the testimony of the official who is next to the highest, and their testimony is not only unanimous, but emphatic, and fully justifies us in embarking upon the important step which the right hon. Member who introduced the Bill has taken. I represent a certain number of Roman Catholics, and it may be interesting to mention that Cardinal Vaughan in 1893 gave his testimony in favour of such a proposal as that which the Bill contains. He said, in answer to the Chairman of the Committee which sat in 1893—

"That so far as the alteration of the law proposed by the Bill of that year is concerned, I consider it a decided gain in the direction which I think is in the public interest."

I think I am fully entitled to give that testimony of Cardinal Vaughan, representing as I do a very considerable number of Roman Catholic constituents. Now, as regards the evidence adduced of the irregularities and want of punctuality shown by registrars and ministers, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall rather laughed at that testimony. Well, it is possible there may have been exaggerations, but, admitting that the evidence was highly coloured, I believe there is a solemn statement of fact on the subject, and I do not think that our Nonconformist brethren ought to be sub mitted to the inconvenience arising from irregularities of this kind. As regards registrars, I believe they are entitled to compensation. It is always given to officials who undergo any change of position by an alteration of the law. As regards America, I do not want to go into that subject, but I had the opportunity of examining many American statutes, having a collection of them in my house, and I find that in America each State makes its own law. But the whole idea of the United States appears to be that the marriage must be celebrated by some recognised official person, and they vary the definition according to the circumstances of each State. I had the honour when I was a member of the Committee of submitting resolutions to my colleagues. They were not formally proposed, because they were embodied in the resolution of the Chairman of the Committee. I laid down this proposition—

"That the attendance of the registrar as a necessary condition is undesirable."

I certainly do hope that the House will give a Second Reading of the Bill. I believe that real grievances will be removed by the Bill, and I certainly feel that the only thing we have to consider is that nothing will be done in the Bill which will at all favour immorality; and, secondly, that every precaution will be taken that the marriages will be duly registered, and that no doubt can arise hereafter as to the status of the parties, the condition of the children, or any right of property, which every civilised State must depend upon more or less.

I venture to intervene thus early in the Debate because I think that in all probability it may simplify if not shorten the discussion, and because I think it is right that the promoters of the Bill should know exactly the views of the Government on this matter. No one, I think, will accuse me of rising in any spirit of hostility to this Bill. The mover of the Bill has been good enough to recognise that a few years ago, on several occasions, I did my best to meet these griev ances, and I possess and I value the testimony from many Nonconformist churches, thanking me for the part I took in endeavouring to get rid of these grievances, which undoubtedly exist. Mr. Speaker, if this Bill had proceeded upon the lines which formed the principal Resolutions of the Select Committee I should have been able to give it a heartier support than I can to-day, but I shall have to point out the very serious matters of principle in which it departs from the Report of that Committee, though I hope the House will read the Bill a second time. At the same time I wish to point out the more grave matters of principle in respect to which it has departed from the Report of the Select Committee. In order that I may at once be perfectly frank, I may say I could not assent to this Bill going to the Grand Committee on Law. This is a practical and not a legal question. It is a question of what is the best way of insuring that there shall be an efficient registration, and of dealing with the returns of papers and of issued papers, and, therefore, either we ought to have the responsibility of a Select Committee or the experience of the whole House. Personally, myself, I should have been glad to have seen a Bill which I could have supported, but I am entirely in the hands of the House, and if the promoters prefer to leave it to the Committee of the whole House I shall be willing to support it; but I shall be obliged to propose its reference to the Committee on Law. I, however, wish to point out in what respect this Measure differs from the recommendations of the Select Committee. The Report of that Committee was very clear, and upon than I ought to make one observation. The Committee recognised the grievances which I recognised, and were desirous of removing the necessity for the attendance of the registrar personally during the ceremony, or, at any rate, in the place where the ceremony was to take place. They recognised also that there should be every precaution taken to secure accurate registration. Here I must differ a little from the hon. Member for Dewsbury, who says—

"If the precautions satisfy us, surely that is good enough for the State."

I am sure if the hon. Member had had my experience of what has happened with regard to registration he would be quite satisfied that what is sufficient for the parties is not sufficient for the State. Now I go to paragraph 4 on page 8 of the Committee's Report, which states—

"That the most satisfactory plan for securing such accurate registration is to make it the duty of the person officiating at the marriage, who shall be duly authorised by the trustees or other governing body of the place of worship wherein the marriage is solemnised, himself to register the marriage in a permanent register-book to be kept at the church or chapel, the contracting parties and two witnesses also signing the register at the time of the marriage, and it shall be the duty of the person officiating to return to the registrar a copy."

I call attention at once to two important matters which are laid down in this Report, and in respect of which I think the Bill is not sufficiently safeguarded, and that is that the person officiating must be duly authorised by the trustees or other governing body of the place of worship, and that the registration shall be kept in a permanent register-book in the church or chapel. Now, what does that Bill propose? I am not going into detail or into matters which could be cured by the ordinary course of amendment in Committee. This Bill proposes practically this: that all registrars or superintendent registrars shall supply the parties with a form; that that form shall be taken to the place where the marriage is to be solemnised; and that that form, having been tilled in, shall be returned. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill which controls the person who is to be allowed to register it—namely, that he shall be authorised by the trustees or other governing body of the place. That is going as far as the hon. Member for Walsall goes, and I am quite satisfied that those who have studied this question will agree that, in regard to a very large number of very important Nonconformist bodies, there is no central governing body who can authorise, or whom the minister will be willing to authorise. This is a most important safeguard which the Bill has totally disregarded.

Though it may be correct that there is no central governing body. I am not aware of any sect in which there are not responsible trustees for each individual place of worship.

The information given to me does not agree with that given by the hon. Member, but it is a matter upon which there may be further inquiry. At any rate, I am justified in making the statement that that safeguard is not in the Bill. Now I call attention to the next question, which is a very important one, that there is no provision made for keeping a permanent register at the chapel, or for the existence of any permanent register at all there; and I shall have to point out, in connection with one or two other matters to which I shall have to call attention in a few moments, that that is a very important consideration indeed, having regard to the absolute necessity not only of correct, but of consecutive entries, because it is one of the peculiarities of the system suggested by this Bill that the records will not be entered consecutively in order of time. It is absolutely certain that the registrar to whom a copy would be sent cannot enter them in order of time, because he would have other entries to complete, and there are not sufficient precautions to enable the minister to enter them in any permanent book. I wish to make good my position in this respect, that the Bill has not availed itself of the considered judgment of the Select Committee which went fully into this matter. That Committee had before it many persons well acquainted with the subject, and who desired to find a practical remedy. I believe I am correct in saying that this Report was practically drawn by the hon. Member for Lincolnshire himself, and I therefore did expect, when he rose to present this Bill to the House, that I should have heard some explanation why these very important matters to which attention has been called elsewhere have been dropped out of the scheme now before the House. Now, Sir, there are several other points of importance. I do not suppose that the hon. Member who proposed this Measure, and even those, who are listening to him, have been able to study the Bill as I have been obliged to study it in order that I should be able to advise what course Her Majesty's Government should take in this matter. There is a very great ex tension with regard to the buildings in which marriages may be solemnised. Of course I do not need to explain to the House the question of the licensing of the buildings which applies to churches and chapels, but the Bill as now framed pro poses that every building which is registered for religious worship shall be a place in which marriages can be solemnised. That may be right, or it may be wrong, but it is a very wide extension, and it does unquestionably open the door to some of those abuses which the hon. Member for Walsall called attention to. We have, on the threshold of all this, the question of whether it is desirable to give power to solemnise marriages in any building licensed for religious worship, even though it may not be licensed for marriages. The hon. Member for Lincolnshire told us that there are a very large number of Nonconformist buildings which are licensed for marriages. I quite agree that, under proper safeguards, it ought not to be necessary that the registrar should attend at all these places, and I agree that his attendance under proper safeguards should be dispensed with altogether. But when you say that every place of worship shall be put in a similar position it is a very different matter. I am not desirous of overstating the case, but I say that any minister is allowed to solemnise a marriage in a particular building, and he may have no connection whatever with the minister in charge of the building. I think the House will see how probably and possibly there may be very great laxity in regard to this most important matter. I am quite certain the hon. Gentlemen opposite do not underrate the importance of this. I certainly do not think there is anything more important in connection with the records of men's lives than that their marriages should be safely and accurately certified, and that they should be capable of very ready and easy proof. Now, Mr. Speaker, I perhaps ought to have said earlier that I am not speaking on behalf of registrars in the least. I do not deny that the registrars may have some ground of complaint, and I am quite sure that the hon. Member who proposed this Bill, and those who are supporting him, will feel that there is a case to be dealt with, especially as the Bill calls upon the registrars to perform services for which, on the face of the Measure, they are to receive no payment. But it must not be supposed that I am in the least saying that against what I may call the principle of this Bill. I quite agree that the suggested alterations are matters entirely for the next stage of the Bill. I only rise to make this explanation in order that it may not be supposed that in doing so I have done it with the intention of supporting any plea of the registrars for compensation, but to show the House the real practical difficulty that there is in dealing with this question. I may mention that there is one matter which the hon. Member who framed the Bill has entirely overlooked, and that is the case of parties who reside in two different districts, and who might possibly be married in a third district where neither of them reside. When you come to the practical working of this Bill no direction is given as to which of the registrars is to make out the notice which is to be sent to the chapel; if two such notices are made out, and they are not consistent, which of them is to prevail? The House may possibly think that this is a very small point, but I can assure hon. Members that it is of very great importance. I wish to point out that the same difficulty does not arise when the registrar is present, because, although the notice may be inconsistent, it is the duty of the registrar to ask the parties themselves, in order to make his entry, which is the official entry, consistent with the actual facts; and from that point of view I would venture to remind the House that this recommendation in favour of the ceremony being solemnised and the marriage entered by a person who is authorised by the trustees, or other governing body, is a practical safeguard, and would, to a great extent, meet the difficulty. Then there is the case of persons who have been obliged to get their notices from different registrars. There must be the plainest direction given with regard to that matter, or otherwise we would never have anything like a consecutive entry of the marriage, or any entry of which the persons could obtain cognisance if they desired it. Then there is a provision which, if it had not come from the hon. and learned Member, I must say indicates that this question had not received sufficient consideration. We are not dealing with marriages at St. Margaret's, Westminster, St. George's, Hanover Square, the Metropolitan Tabernacle, the City Temple, on the Holborn Viaduct, or at, those great Nonconformist places of worship where there is just as much ceremony and dignity as there is in a marriage in a church; we are dealing with the humbler people, who may not have resided very long near the place in which they are going to get married. What is the position? It is provided that if within three months the minister has not returned a copy of the registration the registrar is to take such steps as he may deem necessary to ascertain whether such a marriage had been solemnised, with a view to obtaining the registration thereof. [Mr. PERKS: I would remind the Attorney General that there was a similar provision in his own Bill.] The early part of my Bill contained clauses which are in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, namely, that the people who are going to perform the ceremony were the people who could be got at and recognised as the people who had the sanction of the governing body. It is a different thing to say that you ought to apply to these people—to anybody who may have been minister. I have had practical experience in regard to the large number of marriages that take place on Bank Holidays in towns like London, Leeds, Manchester, and other large places, where they come in considerable numbers to get married and then go away again. Now, I want to know what the registrar is to do if he does not know the name of the minister who has performed the ceremony, and if he has no means of knowing. All he knows is that three months before a document was issued by the minister, and was asked for by one of the parties to the marriage, and had never been registered. I think the hon. Member will agree with me that such a safeguard is not sufficient. The Select Committee of this House, or whoever deals with this Bill, must see that means are afforded for an official direction to be given to a competent authority, that proper notification of the marriage is given, and that there must be kept in some public or formal way an entry of the document which is filled up and signed and duplicated by the registrar himself. This, again, is a matter of principle and not a matter of detail. Nothing is said in the Bill about any duty on the part of the person who has performed the ceremony to have the custody in duplicate of documents left with him, which are equally original documents. Of course, there is nothing to force him to keep that, and we know perfectly well how lax people are in that respect if they are not directly told what they have to do. I am sure the House will understand that, in making these observations, I have not done more than point out that as it stands this is not a safe and workable Bill. I assent to the Bill only distinctly on the understanding that it remains under the control of the House, or goes to a Select Committee, for I am satisfied that if we attempt to treat the Bill as the foundation upon which our structure is to be built we will find ourselves in hopeless confusion. If this Bill goes into Committee I shall attempt to restore in the most friendly spirit a good many of the safeguards which I thought, after the most careful consideration, would be necessary in order that we might safeguard and make certain the proper registration of marriages. Moreover, the Bill proposes to repeal provisions which would permit the most extraordinary offences in connection with Quaker and Jewish marriages to go unpunished, and I have not heard the slightest reason for this. If the House were dealing with such great bodies as the Wesleyans or the Baptists there would be no difficulty. I believe myself that a very short Bill might be framed which would satisfy this House, and satisfy the public, and dispense with the attendance of registrars; and I am sure that these great bodies would co-operate with the Government of the day in thinking out a careful system to ensure accurate registration. I am not speaking of the trustees of the church or chapel; I am speaking of the central body of the Church. I am dealing with the control over ministers by a central body.

In the Congregational Church we have about 2,000 places registered for the solemnisation of marriages. There is in that case no central body.

The moment you get to a church where you have not got a central body to whom you can appeal, and where you are not certain that you will get uniformity of direction given with regard to the minister, there are various difficulties involved. I do not want to argue this case from the point of view of the small bodies; but if there can be devised a practical scheme for dealing either with the big bodies—with the greater churches—or with all the churches, having the proper safeguards, I shall heartily welcome it. I would like to see some means of solving this question by a practical Measure. The principles of this Bill—not the details—require most careful consideration. While I, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, assent to the Second Reading of this Bill, I hope the House will not part with the subject without seeing that the safeguards are sufficient, and that in the future we will do our utmost to secure effective registration of marriages.

I rise, Sir, to move the Second Reading of a Bill connected with poor law administration, which, I think, will probably meet with the general approval of the House. In the first place the Bill does not introduce any new principle, but proceeds entirely on principles that have been adopted in a similar way in the case of county councils, both in England and Scotland. For practical purposes also municipal bodies have powers similar to those which I now invite the House to grant in the case of poor law boards, and so recently as 1897 the school boards received this power of association. Another reason why the Bill should recommend itself to the House is that it is in no case compulsory, but proceeds upon the principle of local option, so that any poor law board may either adopt or not adopt the principles of the Bill. For many years poor law conferences have been held four times a year, and those personally acquainted with the ins and outs of poor law work feel that, however excellent in the past these conferences have been for purposes of discussion, yet an association of all these bodies throughout the country connected with poor law administration will not be merely a great advantage to the Local Government Board in London in dealing with poor law questions, but will altogether raise the level of poor law work, and give it a homogeneity and a continuity of action, which are very desirable. The idea, of the Bill is that the various boards which send representatives to the conferences may, if they choose, elect those representatives to this poor law association. The members will be selected on a certain scale, beginning with two members for every poor law union that has 25,000 people in it, and increasing the number of representatives according to the increase of population. That, however, is a detail with which I need not trouble the House. No doubt, it will be under the cognisance of the authorities at Whitehall, and, if there is any reason to think that such a rate of representation is not desirable, the associations will do what is right to bring their views into harmony with those of the authorities. In addition to this power of representation on this central association, the Bill gives power to charge the rates on a certain scale with a sum not exceeding £10 towards the expenses of the association. In the matter of the County Council Associations this House, without any opposition, conceded a sum of something like £30 a county towards the expenses of the central association, and the same concession was given to the Scottish County Councils under the County Councils (Scotland) Act, 1894. The House will thus see that, in asking for this small sum for the Poor Law Central Association, we are following strictly the precedents set before us by the County Councils Act of 1890 and the County Councils Act (Scotland) 1894. I see that the hon. Member for Flint intends to oppose this Bill, and I understand his objection is that this voluntary association is to be financed out of public funds. The hon. Member argues that if he and others form some other voluntary association they will immediately demand similar assistance from the public purse, but I submit that this poor law association, being entirely composed of representatives elected from poor law guardians—that is to say, legal representatives of the various localities—if their election is properly conducted they become, in a way, official personages, and it is obviously quite proper, when they discharge a public duty, that a moderate charge on the public rates should be granted to them for the maintenance of their public work. At the poor law conference last November 170 boards of guardians sent about 300 delegates, and by a unanimous vole it was resolved that this Poor Law Association should come into operation. It is the object of the Bill to give effect to that Resolution. The Bill is not promoted merely by one or two men who are specially interested in it, but is really the outcome of the public feeling of poor law bodies met together in the poor law conferences. If might be argued that as the poor law conference meets year after year it should be allowed to continue, but the conference only meets four times a year, and if this association is called into existence there will be continued action, so that when an important Bill like the Local Government Bill of 1894 or any matter of a cognate character is to be discussed, there would be always in Session an authoritative body which would fairly express the views of the various poor law unions throughout the country. That cannot be the case under the present system of poor law conferences which meet only four times a year, and have no agency when not sitting. Again, under the present system, the poor law conference has only power to raise about ten shillings per union towards their expenses, and it is clear that the association would require to ask the House for increased support if it were called to discharge the duties of the proposed association. I only desire to repeat that this association is to be a voluntary body, and, inasmuch as the principle of the Bill has been so frequently, and without opposition, adopted on previous occasions, I think it is worthy of the support of the House. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.

I do not profess fully to understand the nature of this Bill, but representations have been made to me by those who have taken great interest in the reform of the poor law schools, and who have pointed out that an association of this kind, supplied with public funds, will very likely be used in order to hinder those reforms and improvements which are so necessary in the interests of poor law children. Persons who are thoroughly acquainted with the barrack schools know the great difficulties experienced in dealing with them, and in saving the children from that extremely unhealthy and unnatural mode of treatment to which they are subjected. The Commission which inquired into the barrack schools three years ago revealed a state of affairs which was simply abominable. Until the House gets a much clearer view of the reasons why this Bill is brought forward, and what is to be done for the money, it will be my duty to oppose the Second Reading. I move that the Bill be read this day six months.

I beg to second the Amendment, but for slightly different reasons. We have heard that this Bill ought to be an improvement, mainly because it seeks to do for poor law administration what the county council Bills have done for municipal administration. In answer to that I would point out that there is a great difference between poor law administration and county council administration. I find that under this Bill the guardians of any union or parish may pay any sum not exceeding £10 in any one year as an annual or other subscription to the funds of the association. But I should like to hear from the supporters of the Bill whether the guardians of any of the 650 unions are to subscribe £10 each out of the rates, plus reasonable expenses, and can we also have a definition of what reasonable expenses are? Sir, I wish to know if any of these 650 poor law unions, in addition to the subscription of £10 a year, will be allowed the expenses of three or four delegates putting up at the Hotel Cecil or Métropole if they are attending a poor law conference in London? The next point I wish to make is: does it mean the 13,150 poor law parishes in England and Wales? If these parishes and 13,150 poor law unions are to have the privilege of spending £10 each, and reasonable expenses, it is going to mean a considerable sum of public money, and I think the promoters of the Bill ought to give some information on that point. Will it mean that a union, in addition to this subscription, could spend £10 on three or four delegates, putting up, say, at the Hôtel Métropole, or the Hôtel Cecil, if they attended a conference in London? I come to another point: what guarantee have we that this Poor Law Unions Association, although put forward ostensibly to promote legislation advantageous to the administration of the poor law, will not also be used in the interests of officialdom? I can conceive, Sir, that the guardians are too often in the hands of permanent officials who object to new duties being imposed upon them, and who object to more work. They elect two or three officials and two or three guardians to come up here and "lobby" the Members of the House of Commons, with the avowed object of improving the administration of the poor law in the future, and giving more work to the officials. Now, I do object to public money being put to such purposes, and I also object to the representative right of Members of this House being whittled away by salaried officers of the ratepayers being sent by associations of this kind, who are to have equal power of voting with representatives who have been elected by the ratepayers, and I do protest against a poor law official coming to conferences on the poor law, who is paid for his services, exercising a vote probably upon matters which might pos sibly directly affect his own official work. Well, Sir, I believe that, deftly organised, this Poor Law Association might become an organisation for increased pensions to poor law officials, to diminish the duties of poor law officers, and in other ways add to the rates, beyond what has already been conferred upon them. I share the view of the hon. Member for Flintshire that the bulk of the changes for the better that have come over poor law administration in the past 10 or 15 years have been taken like butter out of a duck's mouth from the officials, and have induced guardians to look upon a pauper not as a person who should always be reasonably treated. I am afraid, if we establish these Poor Law Associations, supported and paid for out of the rates, and give poor law officials that voting power, we shall have these associations managed more in the interests of the officers than in the interests of genuine poor law administration. I sincerely trust that the Local Government Board will, if this Bill passes its Second Reading, so safeguard this Measure as to render such a state of things impossible, and to destroy absolutely the voting power of the officials, thus leaving the poor law administration entirely to the elected members of the Board. To show that my fears are not altogether groundless, I have received a letter from a gentleman who, however much we may disagree with him, has done a great deal for the poor children in this city. Although I do not agree with him in many things, this is one of the points I can agree with him upon. He has had some thousands of children—you can describe them almost as poor law children—pass through his schools and institutions, and he is admitted as a great authority upon this subject. Dr. Barnardo sends a letter to me in which this sentence appears—

"May I add that the influence of a healthy public opinion has lately been felt most markedly in the changes which have taken place in connection with the thousands of children who are under the poor law; and it is hoped that the reforms which have been begun will be carried out, until the abuses and evils engendered by an effete system have been wholly swept away. The effect of this Bill would, however, in my judgment, by setting up an association of a protective character, be practically to check all future reforms, and to paralyse the hands that are even now stretched out to remedy flagrant abuses."

Now, when a gentleman like Dr. Barnardo makes a statement of that kind against this Bill, it is worthy of a moment's consideration, especially when he talks about the effete system of poor law administration which this Bill will perpetuate. I gather that this Poor Law Association will be captured either by small cliques of officers or by small coteries of hide-bound administrators of the poor law, and that we shall have the generous and humanitarian tendency of modern poor law reform set on one side and the brutalities of our poor law system will become stereotyped, and, probably, not diminished. It may be said that the Local Government Board will see that this is not done, but I am not so sure of that. Some time ago we had a Bill brought forward relating to Poor Law Superannuation, and we were under the impression that the Local Government Board were looking after the interests of the ratepayers with that Measure, and the very necessity for this particular Bill proved one of two things: either the poor law guardians are losing their individuality or collective interest in local work, which I should be extremely sorry to hear, because, generally speaking, it is monotonous work, even painful work, and I rejoice that we have got so many disinterested public men who can be found to devote so much time to the work. But the mere fact of the introduction of this Bill indicates that the local Guardians are losing their interest in poor law work; and the Local Government Board are not in touch with local Boards of Guardians, but desire to ascertain their views as they should do. This Bill will be welcomed by the Local Government Board, probably because it will focus the opinions of Boards of Guardians, and enable the Board to ascertain their collective views, and by a vote give the Local Government Board a lead where now it is incapable of leading, through lack of information. That is all very well in its way, provided that these dangers are indicated to the Local Government Board, and those opinions are not engineered by paid officials, and if the officials are deprived of voting in such associations. But the tendency is, in Local Government Board work, to give to those who have, to give larger salaries, to increase emoluments, and to improve the conditions of service out of all proportion, very often, to the services rendered. I suspect that the poor law officers are very keen on this Bill, because with a little judicial engineering they may be able to manipulate these associations to their own advantage. Unless the President of the Local Government Board is prepared to safeguard this Measure in the one or two points I have indicated, probably 10 or 15 years hence we shall have the right hon. Gentleman coming down to the House of Commons and saying: This is not a Bill framed to bring us in touch with the guardians, but experience has proved that cliques of officers have captured this association. It is one of the additional arrangements which officials know how to resort to for getting large salaries at the ratepayers' expense, for very light duties. It is for these reasons that I second the Motion.

I must protest in the strongest language I can command within the limit of Parliamentary rules against the speech made by the hon. Member for Battersea. This Bill was not introduced to create abuses, but to remedy them. I am not the author of this Bill, but I have had a great deal to do with an association which produced many valuable suggestions, and it was because I was certain that these meetings had tended very much to solve difficult problems that I am in favour of similar associations for poor law administration. I have been present at many of these association meetings, and as I was the chairman of the conference last year, I am perfectly sure from my experience that none of those meetings pass without enlarged views being spread amongst the guardians present. As regards barrack schools, I have nothing to say, except that in the union with which I was connected we abolished barrack schools altogether, and we have taken the children out of the workhouse and placed them in separate homes of their own, in buildings by themselves. I feel bound to repudiate the idea that this Bill has been introduced to promote the evils suggested; it is intended to carry out the views of those opposed to the barrack system, and if it does not entirely abolish barrack schools, at any rate they will be placed under such management, as far as advisable, as will minimise the evils complained of. Then, Sir, as regards the speech made by the hon. Member for Battersea. I am not at all sure whether it would be a wise thing that no salaried official should be entitled to attend the meetings of this association, and I am sure that this would not be a salutary alteration to make in Committee. I am surprised to hear a speech in this sense from the hon. Member for Battersea, because its real object is to enable a poor guardian to attend the meetings of the association who cannot afford to pay his own expenses. I think the allowances made for expenses are very necessary, because I know from my own experience of guardians that there are many of them who are able and efficient men, who render eminent service, but who cannot afford the expense of a long journey to London to attend these meetings. I do think that in the interests of poor law administration, in the interests of these poor guardians, who cannot afford to pay these expenses out of their own pockets, in the interests of the promotion of enlarged and enlightened views, it will be a wise policy on the part of this House to pass that Bill, supported as it is by precedents and by experience, the successful operations of which cannot be doubted.

I hope the House will not think it out of place if I say a few words upon this Bill, because it so happens that I am at this moment the President of the South-Western Poor Law Conference Association, which embraces all the Poor Law Unions in the South-Western district. I am bound to say that the proposals of this Bill perhaps require to have a little more explanation than my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool accorded to the House, and I rather regret that he did not anticipate some of the criticisms which we have already heard from both sides of the House. Now, the first observation I wish to make is to ask how far it is necessary—considering that there is already a County Councils Association and a Municipal Corporations Association in existence, the objects of which are supported by public funds—or desirable to form another association meeting in London, and dealing with an important branch of local government. I think we ought to have some fuller explanation than we have had upon this question, because I would venture to remind the House that much of the most important work of a poor law guardian is not concerned so much with the poor law administration as with all that mass of local work which a poor law union transacts sitting as a district council. Of course, when this Bill is passed into law—and I hope the House will grasp this fact clearly—it will be altogether ultra vires for the Members sent to the meetings of this Association to discuss or touch upon any question unless it was strictly concerned with the poor law, and, therefore, we are asking that public funds should be allowed to be used for one comparatively small object, important as I quite admit poor law work is. That is the point I wish to submit to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, and I would venture to point out to him that the point brought forward by the Member for Battersea is a very important one. He has pointed out that because you have allowed certain county councils in England and Wales, counting about 54 in number, to form an association of this kind, it does not follow that you should allow the poor law unions to do the same, because these unions are, as has been pointed out by the Member for Battersea, exceedingly numerous. If every poor law union in England and Wales took advantage of this Poor Law Union Association, it would be a gigantic undertaking. Some clause must be inserted to allow some authority, either the Local Government Board or the county council, to group poor law unions for this purpose. I am speaking with some knowledge of the work of the County Councils Association, and I say that confusion will arise even in a limited body like the County Councils Association. Nearly the whole of our work has to be handed over to an executive council, because it is impossible to get all the Members, who represent the county councils, to transact the matters of business which we have to transact, and which, in character and quality, very much resembles the ordinary every-day work of this House. If this is so with a limited body like ours, how much more so will it be, as the hon. Member for Battersea suggested, if you allow all these poor law unions to send up delegates to London. I sympathise a great deal with what the hon. Member for Battersea said in regard to permanent officials, and I do sincerely hope that if the Government allow this Bill to go to the Committee, an amendment will be moved forbidding the clerks to be elected and vote as members of the Association. If this is not done, then this Association will simply become a body of clerks transacting business from their own point of view. I do not wish to suggest any dishonest or dishonourable motives, but human nature is, after all, human nature, and if you send up a large body of poor law union clerks to sit at the meetings of the Association in London, they may be very well pardoned if they look upon the business transacted from the point of view of clerks. But there is another side to the question besides that which the hon. Gentleman for Battersea has put forward. In my opinion a strong feeling exists in the Metropolitan area in regard to the poor law schools, and I understand that the fear which animates my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea is that an association of this kind will attempt to put obstacles in the way of those desirable reforms to which he has alluded. But then there is another side to this question. If an association of this kind might for a moment obstruct, it may, on the other hand, encourage reforms. I can hardly imagine anything that would be more edifying to a farmer in the west of England who all his life has been sitting on a board of guardians, surrounded by members of his own class and order, and having no outside light of day from a larger world outside shed upon his deliberations, I can hardly imagine anything more useful than for him to be brought up to London to listen, for instance, to the views of the hon. Member for Battersea, at a meeting of this Association, and from the contrast of those opinions it is perfectly possible that from the west of England farmer the hon. Member for Battersea might also learn something. Of course, we are entirely in the hands of Her Majesty's Government in this matter, and I hope that, on the whole, this Bill, subject to the alterations and suggestions which have been made, may be allowed to pass a Second Reading. At the same time I do not think that if the Government refuse to support this measure, that the promoters of the Bill could complain a great deal. This Bill is a new Bill, and it has not, so far as I know, received any very great amount of support from poor law unions; but in any case a discussion of this kind, if it leads to no legislation, will have done no harm, and when the matter has received more attention, as it doubtless will, it is very possible then that a useful Bill may be passed, and the Measure passed should also allow the boards of guardians to contribute a larger sum to the expenses of poor law conferences to which now they are allowed to contribute a very small sum. I am sure we shall anticipate with great interest what falls from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.

Everyone will recognise the authority of the noble Lord upon this subject, and due weight will be paid by the Government to his observations on the Bill. I am glad to find that, on the whole, the noble Lord thinks the Bill ought to be read a second time. That is the conclusion which Her Majesty's Government have come to, and that is the course which I, on behalf of the Local Government Board, propose to pursue upon this occasion. Sir, I am quite sensible of the objections which have been taken to certain portions of the Bill, and with the permission of the House, in a very few words, I will deal with some of them. The first is in regard to my hon. Friend's apprehension, which he feels—and I know that it is a subject upon which he entertains very strong convictions—that by some dark and curious means, if this Bill is read a second time, it will create a system of which he disapproves so strongly—namely, the barrack school system, which he deprecates so greatly. Now, I am the last person in the world to advocate a system of barrack schools, and within a very recent period the Local Government Board has been able to do something in the way of reducing the effects of that system. We have adopted a system by which we hope to do away with one of the largest barrack schools within the Metropolitan area, and if I were of the opinion that this Bill would be promoting that system, I should thoroughly oppose it. A good deal has been said with regard to the services of permanent officials upon this Association, and that objection in the Bill was pointed out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, and by the noble Lord who has just sat down. It is a subject thoroughly deserving of consideration. Then, again, objection has been taken on the ground that, possibly, the objects of poor law administration are not sufficiently great to justify the undertaking of such a Measure. I cannot, however, share that view, for I think the object of the poor law administration is a very great and deserving one, and worthy of every attention which it can receive. But there are many good reasons in favour of this Bill, and one of them is this: one of the largest conferences of poor law associations was held not very long ago, and I think they were practically unanimous upon this question. The principle proposed in this Bill is the same as that which was embodied in the Bills of 1890 and 1894, which provided for a similar association for county councils, both in England and Wales. The objections which have been urged in the appeal of one of the speakers must have been taken under a mistaken idea of the objects which the promoters have in view. I do not think I can do better than quote a few words of a Report which has reached me of one of the conferences on this subject, in which they point out that their object is—

"To take action in any of the subjects in which poor law unions or boards of guardians generally take an interest."

That is the object which the promoters of this Bill have in view, and I do not think any objection can be taken to the attainment of such a proposal. Undoubtedly, in my judgment, it would be an advantage to be able to do that on the part of the Local Government Board, in which respect the hon. Member opposite says we are deficient already. Ha says the Government does not know enough about the views, wishes, and opinions of all the boards of guardians in the country. Well, I acknowledge the rebuke. It may be possible that, amongst 650 boards of guardians, we are not sufficiently in touch with the feeling of every one of them; but, supposing that allegation is just against the Local Government Board, I think that is all the more reason why we should have this Bill carried, for it will enable us to obtain collective information upon subjects of importance in which we are interested. Sir, the mention of the fact that these Unions are 650 in number undoubtedly points attention very directly to another aspect of the case—namely, the amount of subscriptions proposed to bring together all the representatives who are to be represented on the central association. I think, upon those points, undoubtedly, the Bill is open to amendment, and if the House allows the Bill to be read a second time, I assure hon. Members that these objections will receive the most careful attention in Committee.

I must say that I failed to learn from the President of the Local Government Board's remarks why it is so essential that this Bill should pass, because it seems to me that we have already provided facilities for gathering the views of poor law guardians and transmitting them to the Local Government Board, and also of enabling them to meet their expenses in a manner almost identical with the method put forward in this Bill. In 1883 an Act was passed enabling the guardians in any union, by a regulation of the Local Government Board, to pay the reasonable expenses of any guardian attending poor law conferences, and charge the amount to the Common Poor Fund. There is no argument put forward at the present time that the allowances are inadequate, and they can provide larger allowances for guardians at these conferences, if necessary. Those conferences were highly favoured at the time by the Local Government Board, and I think great advantage has been derived in England by them in the administration of the poor law. Now, if you set up a similar association, provided with similar funds, you first of all tax the ratepayers twice for accomplishing the same sort of object; and, in the second place, I think you will not be carrying out your object by means of an association so effectively as you would by means of the existing conferences, the meetings of which continue regularly to be held. The conferences are strictly limited to delegates, so far as expenses chargeable to rates are concerned. But ladies and gentlemen unconnected with boards of guardians, who are interested in poor law questions, are in the habit of attending in large numbers, and there matters affecting poor law administration are always fully discussed. The inspectors of the Local Government Board attend those conferences by direction and at the desire of their Board, hear what is said, and give their opinions, and much instruction and information is gained. For all these reasons I cannot think that this Bill is a necessity, or that it will in any way advance poor law administration; in fact, I would venture to suggest that it will deteriorate it very much, as you would probably destroy the conferences now existing in order to create this association, limited to that narrow circle drawn from the boards of guardians. For these reasons I regret very much the remarks which have fallen from the President of the Local Government Board, because I believe the Measure will be a disadvantage to the proper conducting of poor law administration.

The proposals in this Bill were the unanimous wish of a conference which has been alluded to, and I fail to see any reason advanced against the Measure on the other side of the House which is adequate to secure its rejection. Objection has been raised by my hon. Friend opposite that the conferences are too large, and with the same breath he wishes to add other duties—that of the representatives of the district councils, as well as poor law guardians. I hope emphatically that this proposal will be strictly limited to matters in connection with poor law administration I do not think it is necessary to go into what has been said by hon. Gentleman opposite with reference to the objects of this Bill, for I believe already that the fullest inquiry has taken place, and every effort has been made to get rid of the abuses complained of, and I am confident that in future these associations will be stronger, and will be able to do more good in the future than in the past. I hope the Local Government Board will not give way on the question of salaried officials, for there are throughout the length and breadth of this country gentlemen who have devoted their lives to this question, and their opinions surely ought to be preserved, as they are of all people those most likely to give good advice as to the administration of the future. At conferences held in London and in various districts papers have been read by salaried officials, and they have added very much to our knowledge on the subject. I hope for these reasons that the Bill will be allowed to pass, although possible amendments may be made in reference to the precise figures of the allowance—namely, £10. As to whether that is a proper contribution, or whether the principle itself is a correct one, I hope the House will allow the Bill to pass its Second Reading.

I think the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has really raised a very large question which cannot easily be disposed of. He appears to be in favour of this nondescript association being formed for the purpose of discussing these particular principles. It seems to me that nothing can be more dangerous, and this House ought not to assent on a Wednesday afternoon, in the face of the warning we have received from the opposite side of the House, to the principles which are embodied in this Bill. There is no attempt to define what sort of discussions there are to be. I say there is no room for them, and they will probably make violent changes in the system the people have got at present. I am sorry that I missed one or two of the speeches at the beginning of the Debate, but I did not think the other interesting Debate before the House would have ended so soon. I heard the President of the Local Government Board give most of his reasons why the Local Government Board assented to this Bill. So far as I can make out, this was the reason: the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Local Government Board did not at present do its duty. [Mr. CHAPLAIN: No, no!] Well, the right hon. Gentleman went a considerable way towards making that admission. He was using words to that effect, although I did not write them down. His criticisms were levelled at the way the Local Government Board discharged its functions with regard to these unions. Now, that is good enough for me. The effect of his criticisms was that the best thing that could be done was to call into existence that association described in the Bill to be a sort of rival to the Local Government Board in order to make good its defects. That is a very large principle indeed for this House to sanction. The various unions through-out the country know what their duties are, because they are strictly defined, but to form this association without any definition whatever of its function, except to discuss broad principles, as my right hon. Friend said, would seem to me to be a very unwise step for this House to take. I noticed my hon. Friend stated that this would be the way to get rid of the barrack schools, and the evils in connection with them, which had grown up in our present system. It is a curious thing that a very influential committee in London dealing with this question of barrack schools, as far as I understand it, looks with the greatest dissatisfaction on the proposal to form this association. Very little interest is taken in this reform of the poor law, because guardians know who they have got to deal with, and they have got a very troublesome business now. Poor law reformers do not receive a very good reception from existing boards of guardians, and often received a very bad reception from the Local Government Board. But, still, they would rather deal with the evils they have got than face a larger one, the end of which they do not know. Therefore, this committee, and I think I may also speak for other bodies interested in the reform of the poor law, look with a great deal of fear at the proposals of this Bill. It has been recommended to this House because it is a "one clause" Bill, but even a "one clause" Bill can do a great deal of harm. The attempt to get a Bill into one clause generally means that you say nothing about the proposal you make in the Bill so long as you get something into existence without anybody understanding what it is, and once in existence the country can never get rid of it. I find there is a proposal to allow a subscription of £10 to these representatives who are to attend these conferences. [An Hon. MEMBER: And expenses.] Well, that makes it still worse, because the committee might increase this amount. If the Bill were once passed through there is no reason why the amount should not be made £100. Therefore it is now, while the principle is being admitted, that it ought to be properly discussed and properly defined before it is finally accepted by this House. There is no limit to the discussions of these conferences, and there is no limit to the extent of country to which they may spread themselves. We may have all the unions joining themselves together to create a formidable rival to the Local Government Board. I think by the smiling face of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he does not think that state of things will arise. It seems to me that the proposals in this Bill are of a most important character, and I sincerely trust the Measure will not be received by the House without further discussion. Certainly, if it proceeds to a Division, I shall vote against it.

I do not object to the principle of this Bill, because I think it will be to the benefit of the guardians that a certain number of their members should meet together and discuss these matters; and I do not object to it because it will follow exactly the same lines that the County Councils Association now conforms to. I have the honour to be a member of that association, and we meet constantly and discuss all matters connected with county councils, and our officials take care to scrutinise all Bills brought before Parliament, and thus we are enabled to form opinions on these Measures. Now, Sir, boards of guardians never have had any common ground to meet upon except at these conferences, and I imagine that if we had this association it would rather tend to stimulate conferences, and there would be more of them. There is one matter upon which I ought to say a word. There is a board of guardians to which I belong which has passed a resolution enjoining me to support this Bill, and my neighbouring board of guardians also adopted a similar resolution. So, judging from these two instances, I imagine that boards of guardians wish the Bill to be passed. There is one matter I rather object to in the Bill, and that is the part which gives power to pay the reasonable expenses of the attendance of representatives not exceeding four at the meetings of the association. I am quite willing to allow boards of guardians to pay smaller subscriptions so that the amount is not to exceed £10, because it might possibly not come to more than three or four guineas. I think that in the interests of the ratepayers that clause should be omitted from the Bill. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea has said with regard to salaried officials, I also say that I object to them being paid extra to attend these association meetings. I remember, Sir, that on the County Councils Association frequently the clerks come up to London, and are paid extra money, in addition to the large salaries they receive, to come and discuss these questions. But although these officials come up to the meetings of the association, and are paid for coming up, when the county councils meet they have no voice whatever in the discussions of the county councils, and, therefore, it seems to me that their expenses and fares up here are absolutely thrown away. It is the same with clerks to boards of guardians. Very seldom in meetings of guardians do the clerks join in the discussion, except to give advice, for the guardians themselves know how to carry out the poor law system, and they do not ask the clerk. Therefore, whilst approving the principles of the Bill—and I am quite willing to do all I can in support of it—I must ask my hon. Friend who proposed the Bill not to press that part of it with regard to paying the expenses of the four members. If he will do that, I shall have great pleasure in voting for the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, my name is on the back of this Bill, but I only desire to say one or two words with reference to what has fallen from the noble Lord who sits on this side of the House and the hon. Gentleman who has last spoken. I merely wish to say that I fully concur with the suggestions which have fallen from both those hon. Members, that it is desirable, probably, that some modification should be made in the direction of the amount to be subscribed by the poor law bodies, and the purposes for which it is granted. These are matters of detail which may be generally dealt with in Committee; but, so far as experience enables us to form any judgment as to how the poor law bodies will exercise these functions, we have found, in the case of municipal corporations, that the constituents of those bodies are satisfied with the way in which those delegations, if I may so describe them, discharge their functions, and are satisfied, further, that no undue extravagance is incurred. I do not think there will be more extravagance on the part of poor law guardians, for there would be a check upon extravagance in the exercise of the control given by this Bill. But I should be sorry, after what has fallen from the hon. Member who has last spoken, to do away with the power of paying expenses, because, as has been pointed out by one or two hon. Members already in the course of this Debate, there is no doubt that many clerks to the guardians who are most useful as experts for the purpose of discussing these matters would be precluded from attending unless some reasonable contribution was given for expenses. Now this Bill, after all, lies really in a nutshell, and the grounds on which we claim that this Bill should be read a second time is the very ground on which my hon. Friend suggested it should not be read. He said it was a very dangerous thing to discuss general principles. Well, Sir, I do not think that remark comes very well from this side of the House, for we indulge very largely in that practice. My experience is, not that it is dangerous to discuss general principles, but that it is dangerous to attempt to apply them; and these delegations of boards of guardians would meet together for the purpose, first, of informing themselves as to how to apply general principles, and, secondly, of informing the people at large as to the best way of managing our poor law system; and I have ample authority, though I will not weary the House with it, for saying that the selected bodies of men forming these delegations such as the boards of guardians will send will be exceedingly helpful in the way of securing uniformity—I mean uniformity in the proper direction—in the application of the principles of the poor law; and, secondly, most useful in the direction of informing the public mind, and of interesting the public mind on the questions upon which reforms are required. It is on these broad grounds that I say, with all due deference to what has fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Cricklade and the hon. Member opposite, that I hope the House will agree to the Second Reading of this Bill.

I think, Sir, that, having taken the trouble to set up these democratic bodies, we should consider a great deal before curtailing any reasonable extension of the powers they may require for carrying out the work they have to do. Therefore, if boards of guardians are asking to be authorised to spend a certain amount of money in order that they may join these associations, upon that ground alone I think we ought to give them that authority. As to whether the associations when formed are likely to be extremely useful I will not express a very positive opinion, but this, I think, may probably be said, that, quite apart from the great principles of the poor law, and the discussion of broad, abstract principles, a great deal of the routine that poor law guardians have to go through may very properly be unified and brought into some sort of system on the recommendation of the delegates from the various boards of guardians. For this reason I am disposed to disagree with the hon. Member for Hants and the hon. Member for Battersea when they say that officials ought to be excluded. I do not think they quite appreciate how very much the advice of the clerk to the guardians in rural districts is followed, and how closely they attend to the business, and how essential it is that the clerks of these bodies should meet from time to time in order to find out the best way of unifying the work to be done throughout the country. I do not say that applies to large towns—I do not know that it does—but certainly in rural districts the clerks perform a very difficult and prominent part, perhaps more so than they ought to do, and probably they are best entitled to give advice to the boards of guardians. Upon the whole, therefore, I should recommend my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board to hesitate before he agrees to cut off these officials. For, after all, it is better to take a different course. When we have got these large bodies—democratic, says the hon. Member for Battersea, and I am more democratic than he is—when we do set up these large democratic bodies, do not let us be shabby, and hesitate about entrusting them with full and ample powers. Those of us on this side who have some belief in principles which we have had no small share in spreading will agree that boards of guardians and district councils are composed of men quite able enough and wise enough to be reasonably economic in carrying out the duties which Parliament may place upon them.

I think, Sir, any hon. Member who has followed the proceedings of the poor law conferences in several quarters of the country will agree with me when I say that their discussions have been, on the whole, very wise and productive of much good in the administration of the poor law. Now, Sir, so far as this Bill secures to us the advantages of such discussions, I am heartily in favour of passing it; but when I come to multiply the number of boards of guardians by this figure of £10, I come to an income of over £6,000 a year, and I for one am not willing to entrust the officials of this association with an income of £6,000 a year. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea told me a few minutes ago that the Municipal Corporations Association spent £1,000 last year. If this figure of £10 were cut down to £2, it would give an income of £1,200 or £1,300 a year to this association, and to my mind that is a thoroughly ample figure. The hon. Member for Hants has spoken of the work of the County Councils Association. I have not the honour to be a member of that body, but I watch its proceedings with very great care, and I am convinced that the result of its work is extremely wholesome and very valuable indeed to the country. Now, Sir, if this Poor Law Association were to become a body like the County Councils Association, we might all of us facilitate its coming into being with great satisfaction to ourselves. It is an economical body, and for that reason it is to be greatly commended. The number of boards of guardians is very much larger than the number of county councils, and it requires, I think, a different organisation, and I would recommend hon. Members who will discuss this Bill in

I beg to move that this Bill be referred to the Grand Committee on Law.

I do not think that it is at all a practical course that the hon. Member has suggested. There is already a great deal of work before the Grand Committee on Law, and if this Bill is referred to the Committee it will lead to the scamping of some of the work they already have in hand, and to their giving quite inadequate attention to this Bill. If it is to be proceeded with at all, I think it can be efficiently dealt with in this House. Even the friends of the Bill admit that in principle it requires considerable amendment, and further discussion as to details, and some of the principal arguments used to obtain assent to its Second Reading were that it would be amended in Committee. I think that before we make such a drastic change in the poor law as this Bill will inevitably make we should have every facility offered us for adequate discussion as to its provisions.

It was my lot to introduce this Bill many years ago into this House, owing to the fortune of the ballot. We have had one discussion on the subject in the time of the late Government, and the discussion was then postponed, because a Commission was sitting upon the subject. I believe that that Commission has reported, and at the present time another Commission is sitting, and I suppose that the discussion will be again adjourned because of that. Well, Sir, it is a little unhappy that a subject which, I think, many people on this side of the House, as well as on the other, made a considerable point of during the last election, and at other periods, should be so treated. It is somewhat unfortunate that the system should become so stereotyped that when we make promises at our elections everything seems to be done to prevent in every possible way those promises from being fulfilled. If we make promises to our constituents we are bound to do our utmost when we get into the House to carry them out, and it was for that reason that when I first obtained a seat in this House many years ago I sketched out this Bill. I may say I invented it in the year 1871, long before the subject of old-age pensions was considered a political matter, or was used in any sense in a political way. Many Members of this House have worked amongst the poor, and are fully acquainted with the circumstances of their mode of living, and with the laborious lives led by many of the poorer classes of this country. We know perfectly well that many of them receive but very small wages, and that many of them, notwithstanding their poverty and the general hardship of their lives, do their utmost to bring up their families as respectably as they can on a very small wage; and those who have studied the working of the poor law know perfectly well that when old age comes upon these people who have spent their lives in toil, adding to the wealth and prosperity of the country in their own way—and a very important way—their means have not been sufficient to enable them to make any provision for themselves, and many of them consequently end their days in what is called the workhouse. Now, Sir, I am sure that all will agree that this is not an ideal state of society. All will agree that a man who has worked during his life honestly and well should be, by some means or other, enabled to look forward to something better than an old age spent in the workhouse, where he is considered by many to be rather a burden for the rest of his life. Now, Sir, there have been many schemes put forward to endeavour to do away with this state of affairs. Some of them are extremely reckless; some have proposed that every man of a certain age should receive a pension from the State whatever he was, whatever he had done, or whatever his career had been during his life. Now, Sir, to my mind such a scheme would be fatal to the prosperity of the working classes and the poorer people themselves, and I should very strongly indeed object to anything of the sort. What I think should be the object in a Bill of this kind is to encourage thrifty and careful habits in the individual, and so to provide that when a man comes to a certain age he should derive a benefit when he is no longer able to provide for himself. I think that is the basis upon which this Bill, and all schemes for old-age pensions, should be drawn. The Government, I know, takes a great interest in this subject, though its Members are not very numerous on the present occasion, and I must say it is a very sad thing to see a man who has worked all his life honestly and well, and brought up a family, having to end his days in the workhouse. It is our duty to do all that can be done to encourage a man to provide for himself when he can no longer work. The great point that I have always dwelt on is that the only kind, humane, and philanthropic way to promote their well-being is to encourage these men in their own exertions in the way of thrift. One knows that many of the poor are exceedingly thrifty and careful, and it is quite a mistake to say they are not, when we remember how quickly a great many of these take advantage of the opportunities held out to them. There is no doubt that they are very thrifty and careful, having regard to the facilities which are put before them. The scheme that is contained in this Bill involves no fresh and large machinery. I have seen themes of those who had no idea of parochial work, in which it was suggested that there should be an account opened, and the people should pay periodically into the fund, but nobody knows the expense and work that would entail. In a small institution, in which I am interested, where we have only 120,000 depositors, the labour entailed is very great indeed, and those who think that an institution should be founded to which millions of people would subscribe would find that the expense would be so enormous as to do away with any benefit which might be derived from that institution. Now, I do not wish to weary the House, but if this Bill is to give a pension at a certain age—I named 65—to certain persons who during their lives have complied with the conditions laid down, I submit there are three classes of persons to be dealt with. First of all there are those who have not received any relief from the poor law at all. It was stated that the rich and poor alike would claim a pension, but I have circumvented that by putting in that only those who need a pension shall be entitled to receive one, and when it is remembered that the pension is only 7s. a week, I do not think it is likely that the rich will require it. Well, as I said, first of all there are those who have received no poor law relief at all. They are the most deserving class in the country. You will find throughout the country men, women, and children who abhor the idea of poor law relief, and live with the utmost frugality to prevent the necessity of taking it. Now, if a man earning £1 a week, or in the country 15s., brings up his family well and never has any relief at all, he is entitled to end his days in comparative comfort and peace, and it will be a great incentive to the people not to take relief if the pension is given in that way; and, to take extreme cases, it would go far to induce any person who now receives it to put off that relief until near the end of his life, and then receive his pension. I use that argument because it may be said that this is only another form of relief. So it is, in a sense, you cannot get out of that. It would be far better, no doubt, if society were so formed as to enable all persons to earn sufficient to provide for old age. Now, that is the first class, but then there is another very large class: the class which, in time of sickness and trouble, and so on, has had to receive relief. I do not wish to exclude that class from the pension, but they will not receive so much. They would receive 3s. 6d., and an additional amount, not exceeding 1s. 9d., equal to the amount which they might have saved any way they could themselves. That is to say, if they had purchased an annuity, or belonged to a Friendly Society, or had in any other way made any provision for themselves, that would tend to give them a title to a larger amount than they would other wise receive if they had not attempted to provide for themselves. The third class which I have put into this Bill, somewhat reluctantly consists of special cases which will have to be considered by the local authorities, who will have to deal with these, matters. There are many people, no doubt, who are deserving, who have lost all their children, and who are in poor circumstances, and who have not been able to make any provision for themselves, and who might be shut out by a hard and fast rule, and who ought to be considered. Those are the three classes which have to be dealt with, and what I feel is, that if this system is carried out—and I repeat the suggestion which created a laugh on the opposite side of the House—this is only poor law in a species of reform. But poor law vitiates by its method any chance for the poor. The applicant for relief now has to show his absolute poverty and misery; that is the only way a man can get relief. It is not by showing that he has done as well as he can, but by showing that he has nothing at all. And if you get two men, one of whom has lived well and got a little furniture, and is hard pressed for the time, he is treated worse than the man who has lived upon his all and has nothing left. Now, under this scheme, a man would live with the desire to live respectably, and the pension he would receive in the future would depend upon his own exertions. He would receive 5s. if he had received poor law relief, whereas if he had not he would receive 7s. Now there appears to be some objection that these pensions should come out of the rates, it is far easier to throw everything on the Exchequer; but I think it is better that they should come out of the rates. This scheme would tend to reduce poor law relief, and, that being so, I think there is no hardship in the pensions being thrown upon the rates, but it is not material. The great point I wish to put is that old-age pensions, which, I think, must come, have been pledged by the Government. I venture to say there is hardly a Member of the Government who has not pledged himself to such a scheme. There are considerable details in connection with this Bill which I do not wish to labour, and I know perfectly well that a Bill of this description can never become law unless it was consented to by the Government and thrashed out in Committee. I am not so innocent as to think that a Measure like this should be passed without very careful consideration, and those who work among the poor will know that there is great danger of doing more harm than good unless it is very carefully considered. I am one of those who object to that administration, but in the interest of the poor I say the lax administration, of the poor law is the worst policy you can adopt for the poor themselves. That has been shown over and over again. The only way to reform is to stimulate the people to provide for themselves better than they do at present. I know very well it is thought in some quarters that it is impossible for the poor to provide more than they do for themselves but the habit of thrift is compatible with the smallest means. I have seen people begin to save in a small way, and have been astonished at the result. The only way is to stimulate the people to make every effort. The various details of the Bill I will not go into now. I have endeavoured to show why the whole system of this Bill should be taken out of the poor law administration. I am against its being put under the poor law machinery altogether. I am sanguine enough to believe that if some bonâ fide system of pensions such as this were established, the result would be enormously to reduce the burden of local taxation for poor law purposes. Now, Sir, I know very well that at this hour on a Wednesday afternoon it is impossible for me to get an expression of opinion from this House on this subject. This is, as I am aware, a large question; it is a question which some of us have thought over for many years. I was surprised that it came on to-day, but I am glad that we have this opportunity of seeing whether the Government are in earnest with regard to the granting of old-age pensions. It seems to me that this is one of those questions which, if carefully handled, will do immense good; but, on the other hand, I am convinced that an indiscriminate distribution of pensions would be a great evil to the State. I will conclude, as I began, with this statement: I think in a country like this, which is perhaps the richest country in the world—a country that has amongst its numbers some of the richest people in the world, and which possesses, I am glad to say, a larger number of well-to-do-people than any other country—it is a sad fact that we find so many hundreds of thousands of people who, although they have lived careful, proper, and respectable lives, end their days in destitution. I am not talking of the drunkard, the thriftless, or the disreputable; but I say it is a crying evil to our system of civilisation and society that it is possible that a man who really lives a life such as I have described, working freely, properly, and honestly, and adding to the wealth of the community by his labour, should, when he comes to be worn out with old age, have only the workhouse before him. I do not say that mine is the only scheme that can be carried out. What I say is that, inasmuch as we have pledged ourselves over and over again to deal with this subject, inasmuch as we feel that the present state of affairs is not satisfactory, we are bound, particularly in a Session such as this when we seem to do everything in no time, to give some of the time which is at our disposal to the consideration of this question, which, if wisely settled, and a proper system is established, will tend more to strengthen this country and to make the lives of the people happier than some of those great Measures for which we are voting millions of money. I therefore, Mr. Speaker, beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I do not want to make this a Party matter. I believe hon. Members on both sides of the House are keenly anxious to do something in the direction of old-age pensions. I believe that most of us wish to do what is right, and I cannot help saying that I should have liked to have seen, a little more sympathy from the Government on this occasion. Let us at the close of this century put an end to this crying evil, let us free our workhouses of the more respectable inmates, and let us see that these people end their days in a manner a little more in accordance with the lives they have led.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member who has made this Motion thought that some laughter which proceeded from this side of the House during one portion of his speech was directed to some observation of his on the subject of poor law. I believe it was directed to one of those pleasant slips which are commonly known as "Irish bulls," a fact which leads me to ask the hon. Member whether he intends that this Bill shall apply to Scotland and Ireland? [Mr. BARTLEY: Try it in England first.] There is nothing in the Bill to limit it to England, and there is no attempt to apply it to either Scotland or Ireland. It is unworkable in those countries although it is extended to them. The machinery of this Bill is such that I need not delay the House long to consider it. The Bill contains many extraordinary proposals. It throws the whole administration of the proposed pension fund on the county councils, but no machinery is provided by which the county councils are to carry it out. The county rate would become a new poor rate, and county councils would have to pay a large number of poor law officials, who would go into the municipal boroughs of the country and compete with the officials of the boards of guardians and overhaul the cases of the same poor. I need hardly labour that question. The inquiries which these new officials would have to make, the cost of which would have to be met out of the new poor rate levied by the county councils, would be of the most extraordinarily delicate and difficult description, even more delicate and difficult than the inquiries now made by the highly-skilled officers of the boards of guardians who have been trained all their lives to this work. For example, the new officers would have to inquire as to the exceptional amount of illness in these cases not brought on by the misconduct of the applicants, the loss of children who should have helped them, permanent affliction not brought on by their own misconduct, and exceptional misfortune and distress. These inquiries are infinitely more difficult than those carried on by the present poor law officials. The poor law relief is distributed on the intelligible principle of destitution, and, therefore, the inquiries of the present officers are comparatively easy, whereas these new officials will have to investigate matters which have perplexed the most experienced administrators of relief. The proposals of the Bill are so extraordinarily crude that I cannot consider it is anything more than a title, and if the House is called upon to-day to vote on the Bill, or the proposals of the Bill, I cannot conceive that the Government will allow it to be read a second time. I am, sure no hon. Member of this House will be justified in supporting this Bill, either from his own conscience or in the interest of his constituents. Having dealt thus briefly with the Bill, I should like to say one word on the general question. The hon. Member proposes to give pensions to the thrifty. Well, Sir, I believe the demand for old-age pensions which has existed in the constituencies, and to which a great number of Members, as the hon. Gentleman says, have in their election addresses given some adhesion, perhaps a little lightly and without having thought the matter out, is largely based upon the other class which he rejects, the class which cannot be described as thrifty. This is a very important matter, and one which lies at the root of this question. The people of this country, so far as they ask for or demand old-age pensions, appear to believe that such a system, however costly, would, at all events, have the enormous merit of getting rid of the poor law system and the compulsory right to relief which distinguishes this country from all the others in the world. I need hardly point out that any thrift system such as the one now proposed, whatever its gigantic cost, will be superadded to the poor law, and poor law relief will not be lessened. Now, Sir, the people of this country ask very largely that there should be some general system of old-age pensions which should replace and supersede the existing poor law. But I do not believe that they will ever, when they are brought face to face with it, support a scheme such as is proposed in this Bill, by which the rates would be levied on the very poorest of the people, and by which the taxes, which would fall very heavily on the poor, would be applied only to the support of those who had shown thrift and providence in life. I am sure the people of this country will never support a scheme for taxing the poorest of the poor for the support of those who are able to show thrift under the conditions of this Bill. The very gravity of this question is that when it comes to be faced by any responsible Government it is the larger question—not the question of thrift, but the question of non-thrift, and the question of the poor law—which will have to be faced. Even the limited proposals of this Bill are proposals which involve vast additional rates and taxation, and I cannot but think that those Members of this House have been somewhat reckless, if distinguished, who have scattered promises on this subject far and wide without duly considering the whole subject. The Leader of this House was once tackled on the matter, and he appeared not himself to have thought out the question, and yet he put old-age pensions into his, election address. The hon. Member for North Islington regretted that the Government were not represented more strongly when he was making his speech in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was present when the hon. Member began his speech, but the right hon. Gentleman soon fled from the House. I do not for a moment think he was not interested in the subject, but I think he was appalled by the demand which he foresaw would be made on the public purse. The hon. Member gave not the slightest calculation to the House as to the extent to which the counties would be involved by even this limited expenditure, and I am convinced that this scheme when made to the House by a Government cannot be limited to the thrifty, but must be a wide and all- embracing proposal, and if it is that it will be one of which indeed the Chancellor of the Exchequer may well be afraid.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with very great pleasure to this Debate. This is a question which demands very great consideration when the present high poor rate of London is taken into consideration. The hon. Member who introduced this Bill stated that he was opposed to any scheme by which every man; whoever he was, should be entitled to a pension from the State, but I must ask him how he is to guard against this providing his Bill becomes law. He will introduce a principle that certain classes are entitled to a pension. How is he to prevent either political Party, during the exigencies of an election, stating that they will allow those people who have not been thrifty—that particular class to which the right hon. Gentleman has just alluded—to be included in the scheme?

There is no conceivable way of stopping political bribery of that character.

I admit there is not, but at the present time political bribery of that kind cannot be introduced, because there is no scheme. I believe there is a Commission sitting at the present moment to consider the whole matter. Personally, I did not give any pledges to my constituents that I would support a scheme of old-age pensions, but at the same time I do not say that I altogether disapprove of them. In view of the importance of this matter, the grave objections there are to this Bill, and the enormous sums of money which the proposal involves, I hope the House will pause before giving this Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of opposition to this Bill, but I think some of the arguments used against it have really been arguments in its favour. It has been suggested that at elections pressure will be brought to bear on candidates to extend the provisions of the Bill to every class. It is said that that fact is against the Bill, but in my opinion it is a reason why we should support it. If the Bill passes, there is no doubt that before long the poorer classes in the country would be benefited, though under this Bill they are excluded. The most serious objection of all is that the whole of the expense is to be put on the county rate, and it will probably be found that the districts in which the larger number of persons have a right to claim these pensions are the poorest in the country. I do not think any Bill which puts the cost on the rates can be accepted. I think the general principle of old-age pensions is largely favoured in this House, and we on this side of the House had hoped that the Government would have introduced a Bill dealing with this subject. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, with his great knowledge of poor law and local government, has pointed out that the Bill is perfectly unworkable. I do not want to delay this Bill, but I should like to call attention to a curious clause in it, which says that those who have never received poor law relief in any form for themselves or for their children are to be given pensions. Almost all the artisans throughout the country are liable to trade disputes and lock-outs, and to be almost starving for a few months. Are you going to put a stigma on them, and say that they are not to receive these pensions because they have been out of work a few months in their lives?—for that is practically what it comes to. Such a clause would utterly spoil a Bill of this kind, and, while I consider this Bill unworkable, I hope the general principle will be approved.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member who introduced the Bill commented on the fact that there were so few Members of the Government present during his speech. I daresay the reason is that this is looked upon as a rather academic discussion. It will be perfectly impossible to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion on the subject. It is one of the largest and most difficult questions, and cannot be dealt with in the course of a discussion of three-quarters of an hour on a Wednesday afternoon, and upon a Bill which is practically unworkable. Not only are the members of the Government not present during the discussion, but the hon. Gentlemen whose names are on the back of the Bill are also absent. One of them, Sir Frederick Seager-Hunt, is no longer a Member of Parliament; but the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff is well able to take part in a discussion of this kind. He represents great and important industries, and a very large and dense population of the working classes, and there is no doubt that if he looked upon this as a really serious Measure, to be seriously discussed, he would have been in his place to-day to lend a hand in the passing of the Bill. I believe every Member on this side of the House, and many on the other side of the House, are pledged in some form or other to an old-age pension scheme. [Cries of "No!"] Well, I will correct myself to say a majority of the Members of this House are pledged to an old-age pension scheme. This is a very difficult question, and raises discussions on many important subjects. First of all there is the question whether thrift should or should not come into the calculation. I have always, whenever I have spoken on the subject, strictly limited old-age pensions to those who have shown thrift during the progress of their lives. I believe myself that we cannot go further than to grant old-age pensions to those who through a long series of years, or, at all events, who through a series of years have endeavoured themselves to provide for their old age. I yield to no man in my desire to see the time come when the industrious poor of this country will not be obliged to spend the end of their lives away from their own fireside and in the workhouse. I know they look upon workhouses not only with regret, but also with some amount of contempt and with a feeling that it is a very great hardship that they should be forced into them towards the end of their lives. I know that feeling is to be found throughout the working classes. There is not a family which does not desire that the head of the family shall not be forced to end his life in the parish workhouse. That being so, Sir, there ought to be found some means by which this could be prevented, some scheme of legislation by which every thrifty working man should be able to spend his old age in Ids own family. While we are all desirous that this should come to pass, and while most of us are pledged to some scheme for securing old-age pensions, we cannot, I think, regard this Bill as workable. We have in Clauses 5 and 6 a list of persons to whom it is proposed to give these pensions. Under Clause 5 we learn that those who have never received poor law relief are entitled to receive 7s. a week from the county rate. It has been pointed out that it will be impossible for the county authorities to go from village to village and discover who are entitled to these pensions and who are not. Pensions of 7s. a week are to be paid to those who have never been in receipt of poor law relief. I think 7s. a week is a pension which many of the lower middle classes would be only too glad and too thankful to receive. This pension appears to me to be applicable to men and women. If that is so, I appeal to the House whether an enormous number of women would not be willing and anxious to receive a pension of 7s. a week when they are 65 years of age. I am certain that even in small localities several hundreds of pounds a year would be required to provide this pension. The next clause of the Bill is even more extraordinary. If states that those who in their early youth and their manhood endeavoured to provide for their old age, and those who have purchased annuities and paid money into the savings bank, shall receive a smaller pension than those who have done nothing to qualify themselves for it. A man who has merely kept himself free from poor law relief is to receive 7s. a week while a man who has endeavoured to provide for himself is only to receive 3s. 6d. a week. That is the amount in the Bill. Then we come to Sub-section C of Clause 6, which contains an even more extraordinary proposal, to the effect that when a man or woman reaches the age of 65 he or she can, if they pay a lump sum of £10 to the local authority, purchase an annuity of 3s. 6d. or 5s. for the rest of their lives. I am sure a great many of us would be only too thankful if we could purchase annuities on the same terms. Sir, I think this Measure is unworkable. I do not think for a moment that it will pass its Second Reading. But I strongly appeal to the Government to introduce their own old-age pension scheme as soon as possible after they have received the Report of the Royal Commission. I have no hesitation in saving that I shall be utterly unable to follow the Government if they do not, at a speedy date, introduce an old-age pension scheme. I hope when it is introduced that it will be a well-considered scheme, and if it is, and is carried into effect, it will not only prove a Measure of enormous benefit to the country, but a Measure which will be popular in every home throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland.

The subject matter of this Measure has excited a great deal of interest, even greater interest outside the House than in it. There is quite a strong feeling that it is an injustice to the workers of this country that a man who has been an honest and industrious labourer all his life, and who may have had no opportunities of saving, should in his old age have no refuge but the workhouse. That is a condition of things that is not creditable to the humanity of our Government, and it is not satisfactory to the mass of the people. I think on that account we are indebted to the hon. Member for bringing forward this Measure. This was one of the first questions that came before the Local Government Board when the late Government was in power, and I know the great difficulty connected with any system of old-age pensions, and the enormous funds necessary to carry out any satisfactory scheme. The first thing that the last Government did was to appoint a Commission to inquire into the whole subject. That Commission held many sittings, took a large amount of evidence, and published a report, which was not conclusive, inasmuch as it was not pointed out from whence the funds were to come, or how they could best be raised. When we sat on the opposite side of the House we were continually taunted by Members of the present Government for not doing something on the question of old-age pensions. The late Government decided to appoint a special Commission of experts to inquire into the question from a financial point of view, for the purpose of carrying some system into effect. This course was adopted by the present Government, and before Parliament met this time we were told that the Commission was about to report on the matter, and I hope we shall hear from some responsible Member of the Government before this Debate closes when that Report is likely to be presented to the Members of the House. The materials can only be prepared by experts, so as to settle the lines on which an old-age pension scheme can be devised. I do not think the scheme of my hon. Friend opposite is a feasible or workable scheme. I myself have given a great deal of attention to the subject, and I have found difficulty in making any scheme generally acceptable, but that should be no excuse for any failure to bring the question forward, because the Members of the Government are pledged to a deeper extent than any other Members of the House in connection with old-age pensions. They have delivered stronger speeches throughout the country than even I have made on this question; they have placed it in their social programme, on which they rode into power; and we hold them responsible for the early introduction of some Measure which may satisfy the public mind. I am sorry to see that the Government is badly represented now on the Front Bench. [Cries of "No, no!"] I do not mean as to quality for a moment, for some of the men we most respect are present on the Front Bench. But I should like to have seen on a question like this, in which such an interest was taken by the Secretary of the Colonies, both that right hon. Gentleman and the First Lord of the Treasury in their places to give the House some satisfactory assurance. I hope the Government will understand that this is a serious question, and that, whatever may be the difficulty of carrying it out, it is a question in which the poor are extremely interested. It is one which ought to be settled, so as to remedy the scandal which exists at present in such a way that honest and industrious men may no longer be forced, when their strength is spent after an honourable career, to accept outdoor relief under the poor law. It can be remedied by some wise scheme of old-age pensions. I hope the Government will have the honour, as it has the responsibility, of carrying forward such a scheme.

A question like this, which arouses such great interest, and has the sympathy of both sides of the House, is most unfortunate in falling to be dealt with at half-past four o'clock on a Wednesday afternoon. My hon. Friend who has just resumed his seat complained of the absence of prominent members of the Government from the discussion. Well, after all, it must be remembered that those who sit on the Government Bench have a great deal to do on Wednesday, and that the front Ministerial Bench compares very favourably indeed with the Bench opposite—with this difference, that the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite have no responsibility of any kind, and might have given some attention to the question if they felt inclined. But it is not a question of the two Front Benches: it is a question in which a large number of people are keenly interested. My hon. Friend referred to the appointment of the Commission on the Aged Poor. That Commission has reported, and was not able to give Parliament very much light or guidance on this question. What the Government have done is this: failing to get light and guidance from this Commission, they appointed a Commission of experts. That Commission is actually sitting now, and surely hon. Members could not expect the Government to consent to the Second Reading of this Bill when a Commission of experts has been appointed, and is actually sitting and considering the whole question. There are difficulties in the way, as has been pointed out. This is the first proposal on the subject that has involved a call on the rates; and I noticed that the hon. Gentleman who proposed the Bill and talked gaily about the rates or the Imperial Exchequer, did not give us the slightest estimate of the probable cost of a Measure of this kind. I do not think the House is prepared to pass the Second Reading of the Bill if it should put an enormous charge on the people of the country. In a Debate a few minutes ago the hon. Member for Battersea complained very bitterly about a possible expenditure of £10 a year being placed on the rates in order that an association should be formed for poor law purposes. But this charge might amount to millions, and surely the House is not going to take a step of that kind, which would be very keenly resented. Therefore, on these two grounds—first, that there is a Commission appointed by the Government actually sitting to inquire into the matter, and, secondly, on the ground that it is a very imperfect Measure—we do not think the Bill ought to be read a second time.

I think the hon. Gentleman knows, because I have told him, that though I sympathise with the object of the Bill, I have a great objection in one way—that is the idea that old-age pensions should be paid out of the rates. I can only say that I cannot conceive any country Member supporting such a proposal. I don't know whether the representatives of boroughs would like to have their rates raised. I contend—and I believe most people contend—that whatever old-age pension scheme is adopted the money ought to come out of the Imperial Exchequer—that the whole wealth of the country ought to pay for these pensions. I doubt whether my hon. Friend, when he made the proposal, considered who pays the rates of the country. It is not the rich people who pay the rates, but the poor people—the poor farmers and poor clergymen that we have heard so much about lately. Over and over again I have known cases of rich men coming down to the country, and taking houses and keeping large studs of horses, who paid no rates at all, except what they indirectly pay through the rent they pay for the houses. It would be very unfair that that class who come to live in the country should pay a very small sum towards the large amount which would be required for old-age pensions. It would be very unfair, too, to the poor parsons, who would have to pay rates in order to subsidise these people. Again, it has not been fully explained why only the thrifty poor should get these pensions. Those thrifty people generally have something to fall back upon. The poorest people who come into the union are generally those who have been thriftless; they have not been careful, and they have nothing to fall back upon, except, of course, the workhouse. In any scheme we introduce and attempt to pass into an Act of Parliament I should like these poor, destitute people to be considered. There may be circumstances beyond the control even of a man who had been careful all his life which might render him destitute. I think it is a very sad thing that such a man should be forced into the workhouse, and that the Bill should take no notice of him, and allow him no pension at all. Whenever the Commissioners report, I hope that not only those who have been thrifty and who have led such an extraordinarily good life, but those who have absolutely nothing to fall back upon, will be considered. You must remember that these thrifty men have probably small holdings of their own, that they have been paying poor rates all their lives, and that they will have contributed towards their own pension. I do not know what my hon. Friend proposes to do when the Bill gets into Committee. Does he say that he will keep out this clause altogether?